A survey study of benefits and limitations of using CellaVision DM96 for peripheral blood differentials

In most clinical laboratories, hematologists rely on the microscopic analysis of stained blood films to accurately classify cells, aiding in the diagnosis and monitoring of a variety of disorders and conditions. Use of the microscope, although considered the gold standard in performing white blood cell differentials, presents a variety of limitations Digital image technology can facilitate a variety of essential job functions in clinical hematology such as: consulting with colleagues, improving training, referencing an abnormal cell, and utilizing archived images for quality assurance and competency assessment. A questionnaire was developed to survey medical laboratory professionals about their perceptions regarding the benefits and limitations for using digital images in clinical hematology. The questionnaire was sent in March 2012 to an entire list of 81 current CellaVision DM96 (CellaVision AB, Sweden) consumers. A response rate of 46% was obtained. Background information on participants, 5-point Likert scale averages, percentage agreement (strongly agree and agree), and disagreement (strongly disagree and disagree) were calculated and analyzed. The benefits of using the CellaVision DM96 rated the strongest by respondents included: decreased eyestrain, consistency among patient results and advantages in training personnel. Respondents reported notable limitations as being: restrictions with accurately estimating platelets and red cell morphology. Digital image software is currently being utilized in preclinical and clinical hematology and offers potential benefits. With upgrades in slide scanning features and improved capabilities to view platelet and red cell morphology, a transition to digital image technology from the conventional method for performing peripheral blood cell differentials is possible.