Reporting and interpreting red blood cell morphology: is there discordance between clinical pathologists and clinicians?

Background Clinical pathologists ( CP s) report RBC morphologic ( RBC ‐M) changes to assist clinicians in prioritizing differential diagnoses. However, reporting is subjective, semiquantitative, and potentially biased. Reporting decisions vary among CP s, and reports may not be interpreted by clinicians as intended. Objectives The aims of this study were to survey clinicians and CP s about RBC ‐M terms and their clinical value, and identify areas of agreement and discordance. Methods Online surveys were distributed to small animal clinicians via the Veterinary Information Network and to CP s via the ASVCP listserv. A quiz assessed understanding of RBC ‐M terms among respondent groups. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze responses to survey questions, and quiz scores were compared among groups. Results Analyzable responses were obtained from 1662 clinicians and 82 CP s. Both clinicians and CP s considered some terms, eg, agglutination, useful, whereas only CP s considered other terms, eg, ghost cells, useful. All groups interpreted certain terms, eg, Heinz bodies, correctly, whereas some clinicians misinterpreted others, eg, eccentrocytes. Responses revealed that CP s often do not report RBC ‐M they consider insignificant, when present in low numbers. Twenty‐eight percent of clinicians think CP s review all blood smears while only 19% of CP s report reviewing all smears. Conclusions Important differences about the clinical relevance of certain RBC ‐M terms exist between clinicians and CP s. Inclusion of interpretive comments on CBC reports is the clearest way to ensure that RBC ‐M changes are interpreted as intended by the CP . Reporting practices should be examined critically to improve communication, transparency, and ultimately medical decisions.