Open AccessValidation rules for blood smear revision after automated hematological testing using Mindray CAL ‐8000
Author(s) -
Buoro Sabrina,
Mecca Tommaso,
Seghezzi Michela,
Manenti Barbara,
Azzarà Giovanna,
Ottomano Cosimo,
Lippi Giuseppe
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
journal of clinical laboratory analysis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.536
H-Index - 50
eISSN - 1098-2825
pISSN - 0887-8013
DOI - 10.1002/jcla.22067
Subject(s) - medicine , workflow , complete blood count , hematology analyzer , external quality assessment , medical physics , statistics , pathology , computer science , mathematics , database
Background This article was aimed to test the use of validation rules for blood smear review after automated hematological testing using Mindray CAL ‐8000 (two hematological analyzers and one autoslider). Methods This study was based on 1013 peripheral blood samples ( PB ) referred for routine hematological testing. Results of testing on CAL ‐8000 were analyzed using both locally derived and International Consensus Group for Hematology ( ICGH ) validation rules, and then compared with data obtained by optical microscopy ( OM ). A workflow analysis was also completed. Results The overall agreement with locally derived and ICGH criteria was 91% and 85%, but a higher sensitivity was observed for locally derived criteria (0.97 vs 0.95). The percentage of false negative and false positive samples was 2.1% and 7.1% using ICGH criteria, and was 1.4% and 14% using locally defined rules. The throughput of CAL ‐8000 system was 208 samples/h, with a percentage of OM analysis comprised between 14% and 17%, and sensitivity of 0.97. As regards personnel activity, we estimated 0.8 full‐time equivalent ( FTE ) of technical staff and 0.7 FTE of personnel for clinical validation of data and blood smear review. Conclusion These results show that customization of validation rules is necessary for enhancing the quality of hematological testing and optimizing workflow.