Policies and practices in the field of laboratory hematology in Croatia - a current overview and call for improvement.

OBJECTIVES: In 2019 The Croatian Working Group for Laboratory Hematology, on behalf of the Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine, wanted to explore the background in field of laboratory hematology routine practice among Croatian laboratories in order to develop future strategies for producing national recommendations, if needed. METHODS: During April and May 2019, a comprehensive survey covering all main parts of the total testing process within the field of laboratory hematology among Croatian medical laboratories was conducted. The survey comprised 49 inquiries. Data was collected using Survey Monkey (Palo Alto, CA, USA). All collected data was anonymized. RESULTS: The response rate was 72%. There is still a substantial number of laboratories that have only three-part differential hematology analyzers (9%). Furthermore, a very high number of laboratories did not perform analyzer verification prior to implementation into routine work (31%). Out of those who have verified their analyzers, a diversity of guidelines and recommendations were used. Nearly 10% of the laboratories do not have a defined policy regarding specimen rejection. The majority of the participants perform internal quality control daily (83%), however, only 51% of respondents evaluate the agreement between different hematology analyzers on daily basis. Although more than 90% of Croatian laboratories have a defined policy regarding specimen rejection, only 61% of respondents continuously monitor quality indicators in routine practice. CONCLUSIONS: The survey revealed substantial differences in all aspects of laboratory hematology practices among Croatian medical laboratories, indicating the need for universal recommendations at the national level.

The band count imprecision - a Croatian multicentric pilot study.

Introduction: Due to high inter-observer variability the 2015 International Council for Standardization in Haematology (ICSH) recommendations state to count band neutrophils as segmented neutrophils in the white blood cell (WBC) differential. However, the inclusion of bands as a separate cell entity within the WBC differential is still widely used in hematology laboratories in Croatia. The aim of this multicentric study was to assess the degree of inter-observer variability in enumerating band neutrophils within the WBC differential among Croatian laboratories. Materials and methods: Seven large Croatian hospital laboratories from different parts of the country participated in the study. In each of 7 participating laboratories, one blood smear, that was flagged by the analyzer as possibly having bands, was evaluated by all personnel participating in the analysis of hematology samples. Between-observer manual smear reproducibility was expressed as coefficient of variation (CV) and calculated using the following formula: CV (%) = (standard deviation (SD)/mean value) x 100%. Results: The CVs (%) and relative band neutrophil counts in participating laboratories were as follows: 15.4% (16-24), 19.2% (16-32), 19.5% (17-40), 21.1% (17-44), 35.0% (8-26), 51.9% (3-29), and remarkably high 62.4% (12-59). For segmented neutrophils CVs were lower, ranging from 7.4% to 32.2%. The CVs did not correlate with the number of staff members in each hospital (P = 0.293). Conclusions: This study revealed very high variability in enumerating band neutrophil count in the blood smear differential among all participants, thus prompting a need for action on a national level.