English 
Italian CONTRIBUTI SCIENTIFICI – Scientific Papers
Volume:
Biochimica Clinica 2020; 44(2) 129-142
Pubblicato on-line:
October 31, 2019
DOI:
10.19186/BC_2019.061
Indagine conoscitiva sulla qualità del referto dell’esame emocromocitometrico
A survey on the quality of the hematological reporting among the Italian laboratories.
AUTORI
Giorgio Da Rin7, Anna Maria Di Fabio8, Francesco Dima9, Alessandra Fanelli10, Sara Francione11, Luca Germagnoli12,
Giovanni Introcaso13, Maria Gioia14, Alessandra Marini15, Angela Papa16, Silvia Pipitone17, Roberta Rolla18, Francesca Tosato19,
Claudio Ortolani20, Sabrina Buoro2 per i Gruppi di Studio SIBioC “Diagnostica Ematologica Integrata” e “Variabilità extra-analitica”
1Unità Operativa Complessa Laboratorio Analisi, Ospedali Riuniti Padova Sud Schiavonia, Unità Locale Socio-Sanitaria 6 Euganea, Veneto
2Unità Operativa Complessa SMeL 2 Analisi chimico-cliniche, Azienda Socio-Sanitaria Territoriale Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo
3Unità Operativa Complessa Laboratorio Analisi, Unità Locale Socio Sanitaria 8 Berica, Veneto
4Unità Operativa Diagnostica Ematologica, Presidio Ospedaliero “A. Tortora” Pagani, Salerno
5Servizio Analisi Chimico Cliniche, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia
7Medicina di Laboratorio, IRCCS-Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria San Martino, Genova
8Laboratorio Analisi, Ospedale S. Salvatore L’Aquila
9Unità Operativa Complessa Laboratorio Analisi, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Integrata, Verona
10Laboratorio Generale Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Firenze
11Laboratorio Analisi, Azienda Sanitaria Locale Borgomanero, Novara
12Synlab Italia, Laboratorio Centrale Castenedolo, Brescia
13Servizio di Medicina di Laboratorio, IRCCS-Centro Cardiologico Monzino, Milano
14Laboratorio Analisi Presidio Ospedaliero "Abele Ajello" di Mazara del Vallo, Trapani
15Laboratorio Analisi, Ospedale Versilia, Unità Sanitaria Locale Toscana Nord Ovest
16Medicina di Laboratorio Fondazione CNR/Regione Toscana “G. Monasterio” Pisa
17Unità Operativa Diagnostica Ematochimica, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Parma
18Struttura Complessa Laboratorio di Ricerche Chimico Cliniche, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria “Maggiore della Carità” Novara
19Dipartimento di Medicina di Laboratorio, Azienda Ospedaliera Università di Padova
20Università di Urbino
ABSTRACT
A survey on the quality of the hematological reporting among the Italian laboratories.
Introduction: the Working Groups “Hematology” and “Extra-Analytical Variability” of the Italian Society of Clinical Biochemistry (SIBioC) promoted a survey investigating the quality of the complete blood count reporting among Italian Laboratories.
Methods: the survey included 36 questions and was sent to all the SIBioC members. 251 laboratories participated in the survey.
Results: there is a full concordance in reporting the traditional parameters (leukocytes, erythrocytes and platelet count, hemoglobin, hematocrit and the calculated indices, plus the leukocytes differential count), while other relatively new parameters, like the mean platelet volume (MPV) and the platelet distribution width (PDW) are reported by 70% of the laboratories. A low percentage of laboratories (20-30%) do not report the presence of abnormal cell populations, if detected (blasts, immature granulocytes, plasma cells, prolymphocytes and erythroblasts). 70% of laboratories do not report the erythrocyte and leukocyte related parameters available on the new analyzers. Specific reference intervals for gender and age are adopted by 68% of the laboratories, but only 50% have instrument-specific intervals. 83% of the laboratories include interpretative comments in the report, but only in less than half of them these are harmonized according to the recent available recommendations. 83% of the laboratories have a shared document to manage critical values, that are communicated to the requesting physician by 90% of the laboratories.
Discussion: activities promoted by the SIBioC Hematology working group to harmonize the hematological report have been effective on traditional parameters reporting with a substantial improvement compared to the 2014 survey. Two issues remain however unresolved: the inclusion of interpretative comments and of the recent available parameters in the report.