By the Numbers: Injuries and Exposures in the Lab

Finding information about the number of Laboratory Acquired Infections (LAIs) and other laboratory injuries in the United States is difficult. Many events are not reported, and of those that are reported at the facility level, only some are required to be reported to national agencies. A report by the CDC cites four studies that collectively identified 4,079 LAIs resulting in 168 deaths occurring between 1930 and 1978. Again, those are just the reported occurrences, and the data says nothing about other injuries in the lab such as slips, trips, and falls, or lacerations.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) provides benchmark injury and exposure data for clinical laboratories, but this information too, is limited to that which is reported. That said, the information may still be of value—it can be used to compare your lab’s reportable injury data to labs across the nation. This can provide one form of assessing your overall lab safety.

The BLS provides annual clinical lab workplace injury data in the form of a rate. That rate is obtained via a calculation:

(Number of injuries and illnesses X 200,000) / Employee hours worked = Incidence rate

Incidence rates can be used to show a relative level of injuries and illnesses among different industries and within the same industry. Because a common base and a specific period of time are involved, these rates can help determine both problem areas and progress in preventing work-related injuries and illnesses. In this equation, the number of injuries and illnesses comes from your log of work-related incidents reported on your department’s OSHA 300 log. The worked hours from your lab should not include any non-work time (even if it is paid) such as vacation, sick leave, or holidays. You can estimate the worked hours on the basis of scheduled hours or eight hours per workday. The 200,000 is a constant—it represents the equivalent of 100 employees working 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year, and provides the standard base for the incidence rates.

It takes time for national annual injury and illness rates to be calculated, so the most recent data from the BLS today is from the year 2018. Back in 2014 the rate for clinical labs was 3.4, and in 2015 it went down to 3.3. In fact, the BLS lab data shows a steady decline in reported incidents over the past twelve years. The most recent rate is 3.1. That’s good news that could mean that lab safety awareness is improving across the country.

How does your laboratory data compare to national numbers? It’s a good idea to use the calculation so that you can see how your lab is doing. If your injury, exposure and illness numbers are on the rise, it’s time to take action. Look for the causes of the incidents and implement methods of prevention. If you see a pattern of the same type of incidents, you may need to execute a safety stand-down around that specific process.

Now that you can compare your reportable data to a benchmark, what about the non-reportable events in your lab? They should get attention as well. Events like closing a finger in a drawer or cutting a finger on a clean microtome blade should always be reported to lab management and the occupational health department, but they may not be required to be reported elsewhere. They still need the same follow-up in the lab, however, and as a lab safety professional, you should be an integral part of the process to engender safety success in the lab.

While there is no national data to compare to for all types of lab injuries and exposures, it is still helpful to collect the information and calculate your lab’s rate. You can keep track of that overall rate and look for trends and make improvements on all incidents in the laboratory. Be sure to promote a culture of transparency and non-punitive reporting so that all lab accidents can be documented.

Knowing how many LAIs and other injuries in laboratories are occurring across the nation is no easy task. The best place to begin is within your own lab. Collect the data and become more familiar with this indicator that can guide you to the right path to improved employee safety in the lab.

Dan Scungio, MT(ASCP), SLS, CQA (ASQ) has over 25 years experience as a certified medical technologist. Today he is the Laboratory Safety Officer for Sentara Healthcare, a system of seven hospitals and over 20 laboratories and draw sites in the Tidewater area of Virginia. He is also known as Dan the Lab Safety Man, a lab safety consultant, educator, and trainer.

Patient Advocacy: Introduction

“I do not really understand what pathology is,” I said during my first round of interviews at ASCP. “In fact, I have a website page in front of me that describes it and I still do not really get it. I want to be upfront about that before we go any further in my interview process,” I followed. Needless to say, I got the job, but that experience really stuck with me. As I learned more and more about pathology and laboratory medicine, I was amazed that I had not known more about it. I had been to the doctor all my life, I had received some serious diagnoses, and I thought I was pretty well-versed in what my medical care entailed.

In the last few years that I have been with ASCP I have become passionate about educating patients about the role the medical laboratory plays in patient care. Without that understanding, patients will be less empowered and less likely to advocate for themselves. Their family doctors might order tests that they do not want or not order ones they that do. They might not understand certain results, which means that they are less likely to take an active role in their care. The more we education patients and their caregivers about pathology and laboratory medicine, the higher quality health care we create. Educated patients are empowered patients and it is imperative that education includes the laboratory.

Through directing the ASCP Patient Champions program, I have been fortunate to meet incredible patients, all who have some understanding of the role the laboratory played and plays in their care. Hearing them say that without the laboratory, they would only be a memory, is incredibly powerful and humbling. The active role these patients play in their care has allowed them to be more resourceful and more hopeful. For some of them, seeing their own slides has been a cathartic experience because they could suddenly see the enemy they were fighting. Others are now educating new patients about their lab tests and taking time from their own busy schedules to volunteer at hospitals and clinics.

It can also be an inspirational experience for laboratory professionals and pathologists to hear how they impacted a patient’s life. I have personally shed many tears when interviewing patients so I can only imagine what it is like to hear from someone whose life you have impacted, let alone meet them in person. It can also really help patients to have their diagnosis be explained by someone working in the lab and to understand why their blood is drawn or why a biopsy is needed.

This new series on Lablogatory called Patient Advocacy, will explore the topic of patient advocacy from laboratory professional, pathologist, and patient perspectives. Each month, you will hear how patient interactions have impacted lives and what we can do to make more people aware of the crucial role the medical laboratory plays in patient care. You are all changing and saving lives every day. Let’s learn together how we can increase our patient advocacy to help them even more.

-Lotte Mulder, EdM, is the Senior Manager of Organizational Leadership and Patient Engagement at ASCP. She earned her Masters of Education from the Harvard Graduate School of Education in 2013, where she focused on Leadership and Group Development. After she graduated, Lotte started her own consulting company focused on establishing leadership practices in organizations, creating effective organizational structures, and interpersonal coaching. She has worked in Africa, Latin America, Asia, and the U.S. on increasing leadership skills in young adults through cultural immersion, service learning and refugee issues, and cross-cultural interpretation. She is currently working toward a PhD in Organizational Leadership.

Recognizing Disruptive Innovation in Global Health

One of the challenges of providing healthcare to patients of any type is “staying current” or “keeping up with the literature.” This can be especially challenging in the diagnostics laboratory where novel or unique approaches to a given test or test method or disease may show early promise but have no clinical utility, be too expensive, or not actually significantly change work-flow and/or patient value to justify implementation. On the other hand, sometimes a technology or test which is in development or approval can be so anticipated that clinicians and laboratorians are frustrated that it is not yet available.

In global health, there is a different problem that is encountered every day. There are technologies and tests that are approved, have documented clinical utility, and add great value to patients but they are simply not available because of supply chain, cost, administration, or geography. In such situations, the practitioners in these settings face extreme frustration—especially with stock-outs—and can become jaded and non-dependent on laboratory testing as part of care. This latter issue is a major challenge in cancer care where cancer diagnoses are required before treatment can begin; yet, in a large number of countries, access to cancer diagnostics routinely is not available. It is to that end that ASCP along with a whole host of NGO, industry, academic, and government partners are making great efforts to improve cancer care in each part of the continuum.

In this environment, however, disruptive innovations are, in fact, much easier to recognize as forthcoming. In the early 2000’s when I was working and traveling in Malawi, our project had a landline in the hospital to call the landline at the doctor’s house for issues overnight with patients. This required 24-hour nurses to be physically in the ward, tied to the phone and the patients. Landlines were expensive to install, had a very long waiting list to be installed, and, for the most part, the majority of the population in the country had never had a phone line in their dwelling. By the mid-2000’s, our project had one or more cellphones (as did the nurses) and communications through texting were nearly constant (especially since it was less expensive than making a phone call). By 2010, cell phones were ubiquitous in Malawi (and almost everywhere else in Africa) and there was no demand for landlines. Although this is a commonly used example, consider the adoption of cellular telephones and now smartphones in the US compared with Africa. There was push back, denial, avoidance, and even refusal to use them because there was an existing, well established system of landline communication.  If you want to install cable television and internet in your home as late as 2016, you were often required to bundle with a landline. The point is that the adoption pattern was significantly different because there was a pre-existing competitor with the new technology although—clearly—the new technology was superior.

Now consider a woman of 35 years who has a breast mass on mammogram in downtown Boston today. She will likely have an imaging study with immediate ultrasound and fine needle aspiration and/or core biopsy subsequent. A pathological diagnosis will be issued within 3 to 4 business days (or sooner) which includes a histological diagnosis along with hormone receptor status and Her2 staining. She will see a clinician likely within a week for a positive cancer diagnosis and a treatment plan will be decided upon and executed. If we consider a similar woman in downtown Nairobi, Kampala, or Lagos, they may, in fact, have a similar experience because of the recent efforts globally to improve cancer awareness, diagnosis, and treatment. There may be some delays (reports may take several weeks), potential stock-outs, etc. but, in these major cities, the services might exist. They are likely, however, provided in private clinics, will cost a premium, and may or may not have any guarantees about quality.

The reality, however, is that the vast majority of women in the US or Europe who present with breast cancer do so at a very early stage because of active screening programs which include mammography. The vast majority of women in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) present with later staged disease because of lack of screening. The latter group of women, however, often live in rural conditions and/or poverty conditions such that seeking care for a breast mass (of any size) will require them to spend time and money to travel to one of the major cities and attempt to access services. With this situation, many of these cancers are detected by the health system at a late stage where curative therapy windows have been missed.

Onto these observations let’s now overlay access to a test for a breast mass that can be performed on a fine needle aspiration biopsy and resulted in ~4 hours which will provide a diagnosis of cancer (or benign) along with prognostic features directing treatment. If we consider the woman in Boston, we may see such a test providing an incremental improvement in care because billing systems, litigation fears, compliance requirements, or accreditation standards still include routine histology and immunohistochemistry to be performed on a tissue biopsy. To some degree, the test may be rejected because it is adding a cost over the standard costs without adding value (other than speed) to the results. However, for the woman in the rural village who likely has access to a community health worker, access to such a test could mean that she starts oral therapy the same day she has the health visit without ever having to leave her village. We have now removed the journey to a clinic that can performed a biopsy, the costs associated with that travel, the time lost while traveling and waiting for a result, and removed the risk that this is not breast cancer—which would mean all the time and money were wasted. For this woman, enormous value is created for her with a test that is performed same day with immediate results.

This concept of point-of-care (POC) cancer diagnostics would arguable meet resistance in the US or European system because of competition with existing systems and other issues as mentioned previously. In an LMIC setting, as there may be no competition, such an innovation would sweep the system and become standard of care—almost regardless of cost. This last bit is very important because traditional systems for performing histology and IHC are complex, costly, and require multiple highly trained individuals to get a quality result. If that process costs $75 to $100 US dollars (to the health system) to provide and, for the individual patient, $10s to $100s of dollar for the travel, lodging, and lost wages, the cost of such a test could, in a stable, high-income country (HIC) market, fetch a hefty price. However, if such a test is priced at $25 to $50 USD (half the cost of the current system excluding the travel), the immediate replacement of the old system with this new system for the given indication must and will occur. This uptake is amplified in an LMIC when the POC test moves to the patient in a geographically distributed process. Breast cancer is an obvious target for such an approach because the tumors are easily accessible, the disease is quite common globally, and the primary therapies are very inexpensive. Could such a test have an impact in an LMICs for bone marrow-based, lung, bladder, colon, prostate, liver, kidney, or soft tissue tumors? The answer to that question lies in the availability of therapy, incidence of disease, and access to radiological equipment rather than availability of the actual POC device. That is, once you have a POC test for one cancer, creating a subsequent POC test for another cancer is a surmountable technical hurdle. But will such a test be able to have an impact because of the alignment of the other factors? It is likely that as you are reading this sentence, you have thought of a few yourself but there are certain cancers where you are likely thinking, “not possible”.

For breast cancer, two such POC approaches are coming down the pipeline. The first is the Cepheid GeneXpert Breast STRAT4 assay which measures quantitative RNA (qRNA) for ESR1, PGR, ERBB2, and MKi67. These four assays are surrogates for standard immunohistochemical staining for ER, PR, Her2, and Ki-67, respectively. In a series of published and in press feasibility and validation studies, the qRNA assay is essentially equivalent to IHC. There are nearly a dozen studies of this new testing cartridge using formalin-fixed, paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissue throughout Africa where the test is being compared to standard IHC. However, in at least one site, the test is being performed directly on FNA material. The second test is from the laboratory of Dr. Sara Sukumar at Johns Hopkins which uses a set of DNA methylation markers that can separate benign from malignant disease on FNA using only 10 markers. By combining these two approaches (benign vs. malignant followed by STRAT4 for positive tumors), a diagnosis of malignant breast disease with prognostic factors for treatment could be obtained in less than 4 hours.

Let’s jump forward to the point in time when both of these POCs are available (or, in fact, any POC for cancer is available). How would they change the approach to breast or other cancer in an LMIC? Because both tests require only an FNA of a mass and because tumors of the breast and other organs today are often late staged, community health workers could be trained to evaluate patients with masses, perform the sampling, and run the test in a remote village. Regardless of stage, starting a breast cancer patient on estrogen receptor antagonists can provide palliative relief or pre-surgical treatment. As a population down stages—which occurs as community health workers begin routine screening—the testing can triage benign and malignant disease at a fraction of the cost for both the system and the patient. Based on population epidemiology, nearly exact costs for these services can be predicted for a population and stock outs can be avoided. Corollary note: Only for those cancers for which you HAVE a POC.

How would these tests change the approach to breast cancer in an HIC? There would likely be resistance at many levels but, eventually, the relatively low cost and the increased patient value would allow the tests to replace or displace standard diagnostics. Without complete replacement, there could, at a minimum, be multimodality redundancy which increases quality. However, the tests would find purchase within the system because in some settings their cost and added value would make any other choice impossible.

For both settings, we can now add other market entrants, other tests for other cancers, and a generalize increased in cancer awareness in the community, all of which would increase demand, improve morbidity and mortality, but decrease costs. Such a situation would be highly valued by the patients and, therefore, is the most important eventuality as this disruption ensues. Recognizing forthcoming change is sometimes hard and sometimes easy; however, accepting and embracing forthcoming change in healthcare can lead to best outcomes for our patients—the central mission of ASCP.

Dr. Milner has no financial disclosures regarding this blog post and has received no fiscal or in-kind support from any entity, named or otherwise, that involves this blog post.

References

  1. Wu NC, Wong W, Ho KE, Chu VC, Rizo A, Davenport S, Kelly D, Makar R, Jassem J, Duchnowska R, Biernat W, Radecka B, Fujita T, Klein JL, Stonecypher M, Ohta S, Juhl H, Weidler JM, Bates M, Press MF. Comparison of central laboratory assessments of ER, PR, HER2, and Ki67 by IHC/FISH and the corresponding mRNAs (ESR1, PGR, ERBB2, and MKi67) by RT-qPCR on an automated, broadly deployed diagnostic platform. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018 Nov;172(2):327-338.
  2. Wasserman BE, Carvajal-Hausdorf DE, Ho K, Wong W, Wu N, Chu VC, Lai EW, Weidler JM, Bates M, Neumeister V, Rimm DL. High concordance of a closed-system, RT-qPCR breast cancer assay for HER2 mRNA, compared to clinically determined immunohistochemistry, fluorescence in situ hybridization, and quantitative immunofluorescence. Lab Invest. 2017 Dec;97(12):1521-1526.
  3. Downs BM, Mercado-Rodriguez C, Cimino-Mathews A, Chen C, Yuan JP, Van Den Berg E, Cope LM, Schmitt F, Tse GM, Ali SZ, Meir-Levi D, Sood R, Li J, Richardson AL,  Mosunjac MB, Rizzo M, Tulac S, Kocmond KJ, de Guzman T, Lai EW, Rhees B, Bates M, Wolff AC, Gabrielson E, Harvey SC, Umbricht CB, Visvanathan K, Fackler MJ, Sukumar S. DNA Methylation Markers for Breast Cancer Detection in the Developing  World. Clin Cancer Res. 2019 Nov 1;25(21):6357-6367.

milner-small

-Dan Milner, MD, MSc, spent 10 years at Harvard where he taught pathology, microbiology, and infectious disease. He began working in Africa in 1997 as a medical student and has built an international reputation as an expert in cerebral malaria. In his current role as Chief Medical officer of ASCP, he leads all PEPFAR activities as well as the Partners for Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment in Africa Initiative.

From Safety Eyes to X-Ray Vision

In the Immunohistochemical stain lab, Rory made up his special stains under the chemical fume hood. One of the reagents he used was hydrochloric acid. At the end of each month there was usually a little bit of acid that needed to be disposed of as waste. He poured the waste acid into a glass jar and labeled the jar as “waste HCl.” He then carried the jar through the door to the room next door where there was an acid storage cabinet. That was where the contracted chemical waste vendor picked up other wastes from the lab.

Lydia was working the night shift in blood bank when she was changing the waste container on the automated type and screen analyzer. She splashed some waste into her eye when pulling the container out of the analyzer. She rubbed some water from the restroom sink in her eyes and decided not to report the incident as she was already in trouble with the supervisor for her continued absences.

I often talk to Lab Safety Professionals about using their “Safety Eyes” while performing their duties. It’s a latent ability we all have and can develop with some practice. With it, one can walk into a laboratory and quickly see safety issues and even make a swift assessment of the overall safety culture. Much of what can be seen using that super-power belongs to the lab’s physical environment- that which lies on the surface and should be visible to all. But sometimes there are deeper issues, those that may be more hidden. With practice, one might easily spot incorrect use of PPE, unlabeled chemicals or trip hazards. But how do you spot those other safety issues that can be just as dangerous- or even more so? How can your Safety Eyes ability be honed into something more powerful….like X-ray vision?

In the first scenario above, you may see nothing wrong, especially if you’ve performed that process yourself for years. One week later the EPA inspector came in for a laboratory waste audit, and they cited the lab for moving waste from the point of its generation to another area which was not designated as a Central Accumulation Area (CAA). Hazardous (chemical) waste cannot be moved to another location outside the line of sight of its generation point unless that other area is treated a CAA.

In the second scenario Lydia woke up the next day because her eye began to burn. She went to the emergency room and told her story. Because she missed the window of opportunity for proper treatment of an unknown source exposure to biohazards, she had to undergo long-term treatments which involved strong medications which have unpleasant side effects. She also had to be tested regularly for Hepatitis and HIV.

Some people you may know in the lab have been performing unsafe acts for years with little or no known consequences. Have they been doing the right thing or have they been lucky? What will it take to correct those unsafe actions? A fine? An exposure or injury? Hopefully not. Sometimes the reason unsafe acts occur is that staff is unaware of the regulations or the potential consequences. Influencing others’ safety behaviors is another more subtle super-power of the Lab Safety Professional, but it can be both important and useful.

As a safety professional, make sure you develop your basic super powers- your Influence and your Safety Eyes- but also be sure to augment what you already know how to use. Learn to use some X-ray Vision. Look more deeply for those processes and actions that may have been in place for years. It is not too late to make a change and prevent an incident that was years in the making.

Dan Scungio, MT(ASCP), SLS, CQA (ASQ) has over 25 years experience as a certified medical technologist. Today he is the Laboratory Safety Officer for Sentara Healthcare, a system of seven hospitals and over 20 laboratories and draw sites in the Tidewater area of Virginia. He is also known as Dan the Lab Safety Man, a lab safety consultant, educator, and trainer.

Up in Smoke

Hello again everybody, and welcome back! Last month, I was flattered by a double feature with my post about giving a TEDx talk and Dr. Razzano interviewing me for her global health series. This month, I’d like to address a topic that’s been literally everywhere lately and is just as hard to ignore as…well, second-hand smoke. So, fasten your seatbelts, ensure your seats and tray tables are in the upright position, make sure your biases are stowed in the seat before you, and (of course) please note the no smoking sign as we take off on the topic of vaping!

Image 1. What? I’ve been traveling a lot. There’s inspiration everywhere!

The Smoking Gun

You may have noted that in the past few weeks or months the topic of vaping has been a mainstay of nighttime news stories and front-page print articles. That’s because there’s a lot happening, and from a lot of different angles. It can be messy and confusing, especially because there’s a scientific and non-scientific debate: availability, marketing, health risk, research, and more—all happening at once. I’m going to talk a little bit about all of this, but mostly we’ll look at the medical aspect of vaping as some fantastic publications are making their way into medical journals, including our very own American Journal of Clinical Pathology (AJCP). Recently, friend, colleague, and fellow member of the ASCP Social Media Team and pulmonary pathologist at the Cleveland Clinic, Dr. Sanjay Mukhopadhyay (@smlungpathguy on Twitter) published a noteworthy article with AJCP demonstrating the histopathologic findings of vaping associated lung injury. In essence, vaping causes acute lung injury which is recognized in tissue, supporting the case that both further studies are mandated for health and safety and that vaping should currently be considered a potential critical health risk.

Image 2. About half of the official ASCP Social Media Team (#ASCPSoMeTeam!) from left to right Lab scientist and educator Aaron Odegard (@odie0222), myself (@CEKanakisMD), Dr. Sanjay Mukhopadhyay (@smlungpathguy), famous resident Dr. Adam Booth (@ALBoothMD), and Dr. Kamran Mirza (@Kmirza). If you want updates with great pathology and lab medicine stories and content—follow ALL OF THESE twitter handles!

In this paper, Dr. Mukhopadhyay, et al, tried to capture the direct tissue-related effects of vaping. EVALI, Electronic-Cigarette or Vaping use Associated Lung Injury, has received quite a bit of spotlight in the media as I mentioned. Case series featured in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) highlighted patients in the Midwest with EVALI-type pulmonary disease, but the number of publications on the topic is currently scarce—let alone ones that demonstrate the actual pathophysiology in-process in those affected patients. In the AJCP paper, lung biopsies from a small number of male patients who havdrespiratory illness and concurrent histories of vaping were examined. With all other pulmonary pathology worked up and negative, their biopsies showed various patterns of acute lung injury. The NEJM cases were also worked up and found to be negative for the differentials of pulmonary disease whether infectious, inflammatory, or otherwise; adding credence to a developing body of research supporting the connection between vaping and EVALI.

Image 3. Here’s the mainstay paper I keep referencing. It’s part of a growing number of published works on the topic and part of our expanding understanding of EVALI and its health implications from both public health and pathologic/diagnostic viewpoints.

Where There’s Smoke, There’s…a Lot of Stuff, Actually

There are a ton of stories in the lay-press about vaping-related illnesses. The surveillance data from those NEJM case series and the CDC show a median age of 19 with an overwhelming 94% being hospitalized and roughly two-thirds of those requiring ICU intervention and one-third having to be placed on mechanical ventilation. Of note, 11% of these patients claimed that they vaped pure nicotine product, while 89% smoked cannabinoids/THC in their vape products. Most of them presented to medical care with oxygen saturations <89% on room air (normal O2 sats are variable by patient, but they should be above 95% in ideally healthy individuals). This is neither an endorsement or comment on the medical uses of cannabinoids or a statement on their health effects. Instead, it should be worth mentioning that not only are electronic-cigarette products a new way of smoking higher concentrations of tobacco-obtained or synthetic nicotine but also other products, which have very little data with regard to their associated health risks.

Image 4a. If you haven’t been able to read Dr. Mukhopadhyay’s paper yet, don’t worry I got you. Here are a few cases’ computed tomography (CT) scans that show clinically diagnostic evidence of pulmonary disease visible as (A) ground-glass opacity, GGO, with a pattern that mimics a peripheral eosinophilic pneumonia, (B) more GGOs with areas of consolidation, or solid-looking lung tissue, (C) lower lung GGOs and consolidation with some thickened tissue, and (D) patchy GGOs. All of these cases and more demonstrated some kind of pneumonia and lung tissue pathology but had been worked up and found negative for other causes of disease aside from their shared history of vaping.
Image 4b. Okay, this is a blog for medical laboratory professionals, right? So here’s some slides for the glass pushers! PLEASE NOTE: this is just a sample of a number of histopathologic findings published in the paper, so to see the rest go to the primary source. I’ve highlighted these images as they demonstrate the two major lung injury patterns seen in the EVALI entity: organizing pneumonia seen in (A) & (B) and diffuse alveolar damage (DAD) seen in figures (C) & (D).

Put This in Your Pipe and (please don’t) Smoke It

Okay, I mentioned cannabinoids. Now that I have your attention, I want to walk you through a unique piece of the EVALI discussion you may have seen in the media: the implication of Vitamin-E substances as a potential culprit for these lung-related injuries. The New York Times recently published a piece that cites the CDC’s consideration of Vit-E Acetate as a “a very strong culprit.” Think about it this way: the aerosol generated by vaping devices can reach very high temperatures (higher than traditional cigarettes), if a substance is inhaled at this temperature, and contains lipid-soluble-contents like Vitamin-E acetate, you’re breathing in a grease fire! Here’s an oversimplification: some studies of vaping came up with a theory that a grease fire would cause injury in the lungs similar to a pattern caused by inadvertent inhalation of mineral oil into the lungs known as “exogenous lipoid pneumonia”. However, when expert lung pathologists including Dr. Mukhopadhyay looked at lung biopsies from EVALI patients, they didn’t find even a single case of exogenous lipoid pneumonia. What does this mean? Not much at this point. It’s certainly possible that vitamin E acetate causes lung damage but not in the way mineral oil does. As the CDC materials state, this is early days if it is indeed a health epidemic (it probably is though, please stop vaping). More research is needed, as always, but you can read the NYT article and CDC primer article here.

Image 5. Not all that glitters is…Vitamin-E Acetate. The paper includes images of exogenous lipoid pneumonia (not from the cases studied) and endogenous lipoid pneumonia (from an EVALI case) as a comparison. Note that from a tissue standpoint, the lipid- filled macrophages on the right from an EVALI patient do not resemble the lipid-filled macrophages on the left (caused by mineral oil). Sure, there’s lipid in macrophages in the EVALI lung, but is that because a lipid is causing the damage, or because lipid from the membranes of injured cells is being cleaned up by macrophages? Lung pathologists think that the latter is more likely.

Fired Up, Ready to Go and Sending Smoke Signals

So, imagine you’re a vaper. Imagine you started because it helped you quit traditional cigarettes. That’s fantastic, good for you. You’re on the road to smoking cessation and better health! But perhaps the vaping-associated lung injury cases has made you a little defensive. Trust me I learned the hard way as I joined in the discussion earlier this month on a live-tweet pathology journal club on the AJCP article featured here. They happen under the hashtag #PathJC and lots of folks jump into the discussion from different places, institutions, time zones, and across disciplines—but its not just a bunch of pathologists analyzing an article in an academic bubble. Twitter is a public forum and that brings with it public scrutiny and commentary. As such, there were lots of lay people participating in the discussion and many individuals who held a positive opinion of electronic cigarettes. So not only did we have a very comprehensive discussion in the merits and shortcomings of published literature on the topic of EVALI, we also had to field questions and engage in non-jargon conversations with concerned (and sometimes passionate) members of the non-scientific community. Suffice it to say, it’s a tricky tightrope to walk when you’re trying to balance your anti-smoking public health crusade with some good old-fashioned medical education challenged with a sprinkle of vitriol on the most open of forums, the internet. But that’s okay! I strongly think, that in the future of medical practice, those of us in any discipline (but especially pathology and lab medicine) should lead the charge as champions of truth to connect our revered medical data to people in real terms—basically translate translational medicine.

Image 6. Why am I showing you my twitter profile picture? Easy: one of those “incendiary” comments in discussing smoking and vaping in a public forum actually included someone screen capturing my profile and accosting my “smug” pose and taste for esophageal damage in drinking hot coffee, citing poor data references for caffeine related deaths versus that of smoking. How do you deal with this? Calmly, with open honest information and, most importantly, with humility to address the barriers in communication between opposing points of view. Champions of truth, remember? But once you notice you’re talking to folks online who represent companies in the tobacco industry, ABORT MISSION, you went too far, haha! (True story, yikes!)

Once the Smoke Settles

Basically, everything’s going to be okay. There’s always a crisis or an epidemic happening that we have to address with limited data, developing knowledge, and some cohort of representative push back. That’s the nature of public health. But I’ll pull straight from the authors’ conclusion in the AJCP paper and remind you that not only is this just one, single study with very small number of cases to measure clinical outcomes, but further study is needed to support what is just beginning to be a correlation between vaping and lung injury.

TL;DR – it might seem obvious to some that hot smoke burns your lungs, but we’ve got to prove it and take steps to protect our patients everywhere.

And the good news is there are lots of us working on this. Scientists, public health officials, researchers, reporters, medical professionals, and especially pathologists are here collecting data and adding knowledge to that growing body of evidence to address this …hot topic.

Image 7. Here’s at least two of those people. Spoiler: it’s my wife and me. Here we are the recent American Public Health Association (APHA) conference in Philadelphia where the topic of vaping, smoking, and lung injury were very much in the forefront of public health research as it fits into the context of social determinants of health, medical literacy campaigns, and other concurrently related health issues like asthma and COPD.
Image 8. I actually joined that live tweet #PathJC journal club discussion from the APHA 2019 conference and was lucky enough to have, in-hand, the official EVALI clinical information release from the CDC booth in the expo floor. Check it out on my Twitter feed.

Breathe Easy

What’s past this smokescreen challenge? The same thing as always: hard work, collaboration, innovation, and paradigm shifting. If you’ve read my previous posts, you know I like to wax a bit about the future of medicine and the humanity behind our profession. Taking everything into consideration with this newest and hottest of public health concerns, our role as diagnosticians and translational representatives is as important as ever. And, if we want to ensure the recognized contributions of pathology in the wider field of medicine (and health-at-large) we should work with our colleagues in and out of the medical profession to demystify this kind of research, cleanly communicate health data to the public, and push the boundaries of personalized health and improved patient outcomes. But beware: when you address big topics like smoking, vaping, EVALI, and THC use, it can be easy to get too hot, and even burn out.

Thanks again, see you next time, and hope you had a Happy Thanksgiving!

(This is absolutely stolen from @iHeartHisto on Twitter, but enjoy a slice of pump-skin pie!)

Constantine E. Kanakis MD, MSc, MLS (ASCP)CM completed his BS at Loyola University Chicago and his MS at Rush University. He writes about experiences through medical school through the lens of a medical lab scientist with interests in hematopathology, molecular, bioethics, transfusion medicine, and graphic medicine. He is currently a 2020 AP/CP Residency Applicant and actively involved in public health and education, advocating for visibility and advancement of pathology and lab medicine. Follow him on Twitter @CEKanakisMD

Hematology Case Study: The Story of the Platelet Clump: EDTA-Induced Thrombocytopenia

I belong to a Hematology Interest Group and always enjoy seeing the case studies and questions that other techs post. This group is multinational so I see posts from techs all over the world. It’s interesting to see the similarities and differences in standard operating practices and the roles techs play in different areas and different countries. It’s also interesting to see that we all come across the same types of problems and difficult specimens! In the last few months in this Hematology Interest Group, I have seen many questions and comments about resolving clumped platelets, and am therefore using this opportunity to shed some light on these tricky specimens. The case I am presenting, and the photos, are courtesy of Abu Jad Caesar, who is a Lab manager at Medicare Laboratories – Tulkarm branch, in Palestine.

The patient had a CBC performed on a Nihon Kohden 6410. WBC was 12.7 x 103μL, impedance platelet count was 20,000/μL on initial run, other parameters appeared within normal limits. The sample was warmed and a Na Citrate tube was requested to rule out pseudothrombocytopenia. After warming, the EDTA was rerun with a platelet count of 0/μL. The Na Citrate tube was run, and platelet count from the instrument was 189,000/μL. (Figure 1) Because of the blood:anticoagulant ratio in the Na Citrate tube, a multiplier of 1.1 was applied, thus making the Na Citrate platelet count 207,900/μL. Slides were made, stained and examined. Image 1 shows the clumping in the EDTA tube. Image 2 shows the smear from the Na Citrate tube, with no visual clumping.

The CBC was reported with the following comments: Platelet clumping observed, 2 samples drawn to rule out thrombocytopenia. EDTA whole blood smear had many platelet clumps noted (EDTA induced thrombocytopenia). Conclusion: Platelets are adequate and estimated to be about 200,000/μL.

Figure 1. Results from warmed EDTA tube (left) and Na Citrate tube (right).
Image 1. Clumped platelets seen with EDTA.
Image 2. Normal platelet count with no clumping seen with Na Citrate.

Platelet counts in the normal range don’t usually give us too much trouble in reporting, even if some clumping is present, mainly because they are normal. Adequate platelet counts fall within a typical reference range of about 150- 450 x 103/μL. If there are instrument flags for a platelet abnormal scattergram or platelet clumps, it is recommended to repeat testing by another method. If the initial count is performed by impedance counting, many analyzers can also report optical or fluorescent platelet counts. With impedance counting, very small RBCs or fragments may be counted as platelets, thus giving a falsely increased platelet count. With optical counting, large platelets can be counted as RBCs, thus giving a falsely decreased count. Some Sysmex hematology analyzers use impedance and optical counts and also feature fluorescent platelet counts which use a platelet specific dye and give accurate platelet counts without the interferences of other methods. A normal platelet count, even with clumping seen on a smear, is still usually estimated to be normal (or may occasionally be increased.)

Thrombocytopenia, on the other hand, can be a challenge in the hematology laboratory. With thrombocytopenia, physicians need an accurate count to diagnose, treat or monitor patients. Even a small increase or decrease can be significant when there is a severe thrombocytopenia. With fewer platelets, every platelet counts!

One of the first questions we must ask with an apparent thrombocytopenia is if this is a true thrombocytopenia or if it is pseudothrombocytopenia (PTCP). A true thrombocytopenia represents a patient with a low platelet count who may need monitoring or medical intervention. It can be dangerous to miss true thrombocytopenia but is also dangerous to report a low platelet count in a patient with a spurious thrombocytopenia who is not actually thrombocytopenic. Pseudothrombocytopenia, or spurious thrombocytopenia, is defined as an artificially or erroneously low platelet count. In PTCP, the low platelet count is due to clumps that are counted as 1 platelet. (These large clumps can also be counted as WBCs, thus giving a falsely increased WBC count.)

We can divide PTCP into 2 categories Platelet clumping is most commonly caused by pre-analytic errors such as over-filled or under-filled EDTA tubes, clotted specimens, or a time delay between sample collection and testing. Techs should check the tube for clots and sample volume and do a delta check to help differentiate thrombocytopenia and PTCP. But, with an apparent ‘good’ sample, the next step would be a smear review. If there are clumps seen on the smear, then we need to decide what caused the clumps. Is it the first category, one of these common pre-analytical issues, or is it the 2nd category of PTCP, an in vitro agglutination of platelets? Conditions that can cause this in vitro agglutination of platelets include cold agglutinins, multiple myeloma, infections, anticardiolipin antibodies, high immunoglobulin levels, abciximab therapy and EDTA induced pseudothrombocytopenia. (EDTA-PTCP) Of these, EDTA induced pseudothrombocytopenia is the most common cause. (Nakashima, 2016).

When techs talk about platelet clump issues, it is usually because we are looking for ways to resolve or to accurately estimate the platelet count in these samples, and there doesn’t seem to be one easy answer. The clumping makes precise counting impossible and even estimates can be very tricky. How can we estimate these counts? Do we simply report the presence of clumping with “appear normal”, “decreased” or “increased”? Or, should we break our estimates into more ranges to give physicians more valuable information? And, what if the provider wants an actual count in order to give the patient the best care possible and we can’t resolve the clumping? What can we do to provide a count? Some of the first steps recommended include vortexing the sample for 2 minutes to break up platelet clumps, then re-analyzing. Warming samples may also help to resolve platelet clumps, particularly in samples with cold agglutinins or that have had a delay in testing and have been transported or stored at room temperature or below. If clumps persist and recollecting the sample still yields platelet clumping, then pre-analytical error can be ruled out an EDTA induced pseudothrombocytopenia may be suspected. Many labs will have an alternate tube drawn or use another method to help resolve the clumping.

So, what is EDTA induced thrombocytopenia (EDTA-PTCP)? This is not representative of a particular clinical picture, and is not diagnostic for any disorder or drug therapy, but is a laboratory phenomenon due to presence of EDTA dependent IgM/IgG autoantibodies. These antibodies bind to platelet membrane glycoproteins in presence of EDTA. EDTA induces and enhances this binding by exposing these glycoproteins to the antibodies. (Geok Chin Tan, 2016) Though it is an in vitro phenomenon, patients with certain conditions, such as malignant neoplasms, chronic liver disease, infection, pregnancy, and autoimmune diseases, do have increased risk of EDTA-PTCP. However, EDTA-PTCP has also been observed in patients who are disease free. (Zhang, 2018)

What are some alternate methods to help resolve EDTA induced platelet clumping challenges? Probably the most common is to redraw the sample in a Na Citrate tube. Both EDTA and Na Citrate tubes should be drawn. In a true EDTA-PTCP, as seen in our case study, you should see clumps on the smear made from the EDTA tube and no clumps on the smear made from the Na Citrate tube. Because of the volume of the anticoagulant in the Na Citrate tube you must also apply the dilution factor of 1.1 to the count from the Na Citrate tube to get an accurate platelet count. Note, however, that hematology analyzers are FDA approved and validated for use with EDTA tubes. If you wish to use a different anticoagulant, the method must be validated in your laboratory. Note also that alternate methods will generally only resolve EDTA -PTCP, and not clumping due to other cold agglutinins, medication or disorders. In addition, anticoagulant induced thrombocytopenia is not limited to EDTA. It can also occur with citrate and heparin. In a study, it was found that up to 17% of patients with an EDTA -PTCP also exhibited this phenomenon with citrate. In fact, researchers have found, and we have found in our own validations, that some samples that do not clump in EDTA actually DO clump in Na Citrate. Thus, alternate tubes may not resolve all platelet clumping. (Geok Chin Tan, 2016)

Some labs have validated ACD (Citric acid, trisodium citrate, dextrose) anticoagulant tubes for EDTA-PTCP. Using this method, the EDTA tube and ACD must be run in parallel and a conversion factor applied, reflecting the difference in sample dilution in the 2 tubes. A parameter such as the RBC must be chosen to make this comparison. Using a formula that divides the RBC in EDTA by the RBC in ACD gives a ratio that reflects the dilutional differences between anticoagulants. This ratio can then be multiplied by the ACD platelet count to obtain the ACD corrected platelet count. (CAP Today, 2014). Some sources have recommended ACD tubes because the incidence of clumping with Na Citrate can be frustratingly high. It is theorized that the more acidic ACD tube may prevent platelet clumping better than Na Citrate. (Manthorpe, 1981)

Less commonly used tubes are CTAD (trisodium citrate, theophylline, adenosine, dipyridamole) and heparin. CTAD acts directly on platelets and inhibits platelet factor 4 thus minimizing platelet activation. Downsides to CTAD tubes are that they are light sensitive and must be stored in the dark, and can be costly. They also alter the blood/additive dilution ratio so calculations must be used, as seen with Na Citrate and ACD. Heparin tubes are less commonly found to be beneficial in resolving platelet clumping issues because heparin can active platelets. Heparin tubes are also more expensive, so have not generally been a first choice for EDTA-PTCP.

I have heard from techs that their labs have very good results using amikacin added to EDTA tubes to prevent spuriously low platelet counts in patients with EDTA-PTCP. Amikacin should be added to the EDTA tube within 1 hour after draw and testing is stable for up to 4 hours at room temperature. Results of a study done in 2011 showed that the addition of amikacin to the EDTA tube produced rapid dissociation of the platelet clumps with little or no effect on morphology or indicies. This method has proved very promising for reporting accurate platelet counts in patients with multianticoagulant induced PTCP. (Zhou, 2011)

The last anticoagulant tube that I have seen mentioned by many techs in the hematology interest group are Sarstedt ThromboExact tubes. I have seen many posts from techs who use these and they seem to have a very good success rate. ThromboExact tubes contain magnesium salts and are specifically designed to determine platelet counts in cases of PTCP. They are currently validated only for platelet counts and samples are stable for 12 hours after collection. Interestingly, before automated hematology analyzers, magnesium was the anticoagulant of choice for manual platelet counts. EDTA-PTCP has been recognized since EDTA automated platelet counts were introduce in the 1970s. A 2013 study in Germany used ThromboExact tubes with excellent results for resolving multianticoagulant induced PTCP. These tubes became commercially available during the study, in 2013. (Schuff-Werner, 2013) Unfortunately for us in the United States, these tubes are not available in the US. I was recently at a conference and went up to the Sarstedt representatives and asked about these tubes. I was told that they are available in parts of Europe and Asia but are not FDA approved in the US. I asked very hopefully if they were looking at getting FDA approval and was unfortunately told that “they didn’t think they had the market for them to pursue approval.”

Whichever alternative method your lab chooses to use, it is recommended to draw an EDTA and the alternate tube together. This way the 2 counts and the presence or absence of clumping in the tubes can be compared. We have many patients who had one incidence of clumping, yet when the provider orders a Na Citrate platelet count, we get a new draw of both EDTA and Na Citrate tubes together, and there is no flagging or clumping seen with EDTA. In these cases it is appropriate to result the EDTA results as there is no evidence of EDTA-PTCP.

When a patient has a low PLT count without any hematologic disease, family history, and/or bleeding-tendency identified, and pre-analytical errors have been ruled out, PTCP should be considered. This does not mean that a patient with PTCP will have a normal platelet count after the clumping is resolved. As stated above, many patients with EDTA-PTCP have hematological or other disorders and may be truly thrombocytopenic. Resolving the clumping in these patients allows us to give the provider an accurate platelet count, which is very important in thrombocytopenic patients.

The flow chart below (Figure 4) shows some things to consider when dealing with platelet clumping. It is our goal to resolve clumping so that we can report an accurate platelet count in a timely fashion. In the laboratory where I work, I have validated Na citrate tubes, but these seem to resolve clumping in less than 50% of patients. As a last resort, to get an accurate platelet count, some articles have suggested collecting a fingerstick and performing manual counts. I did include this in the chart as an option for multianticoagulant PTCP, however, due to the difficulty in collecting a good specimen and the subjectivity of counts, along with problems associated with necessary calculations, our pathologists have decided that we will not do manual platelet counts. For this reason, I am currently involved in platelet clumping monitoring and will be conducting a small internal study to compare ACD, CTAD and Na Citrate tubes in parallel. Depending on those results we may also then test amikacin. If we come to any enlightened conclusions I’ll write another short blog with our results!

Thanks again to Abu Jad Caesar, lab manager at Medicare Laboratories – Tulkarm branch, in Palestine, who provided me with this textbook perfect case of PCTP, which was easily resolved by collecting in Na Citrate. We wish they all read the textbooks and were as cooperative!

Figure 2. Flowchart for resolving and reporting of thrombocytopenia.

References

  1. CAP Today, January 2014. accessed online http://www.captodayonline/qa-column-0114
  2. Manthorpe R, Kofod B, et al. Pseudothrombocytopenia, In vitro studies on the underlying mechanisms. Scand J Haematol 1981; 26:385-92
  3. Nakashima MO, Kottke-Marchant K. Platelet Testing: In: Kottke-Marhchant K, ed. An Algorithmic Approach to Hemostasis Testing, 2nd ed. CAP Press; 2016:101
  4. Schuff-Werner,Peter, et al. Effective estimation of correct platelet counts in pseudothrombocytopenia using an alternative anticoagulant based on magnesium salt. Brit J of Haematol Vol 162, Issue 5. June 29, 2013
  5. Tan, Geok Chin et al. Pseudothrombocytopenia due to platelet clumping: A Case Report and Brief Review of the Literature. Case Reports in Hematology. Volume 2016
  6. Lixia Zhang, MMed,* Jian Xu, MD,* Li Gao, MMed, Shiyang Pan, MD, PhD. Spurious Thrombocytopenia in Automated Platelet Count. Laboratory Medicine 49:2:130-133. 2018
  7. Zhou,Xiamian, et al. Amikacin can be added to blood to reduce the fall in platelet count. Am Journal of Clinical pathology, Vol 136, Issue 4, Oct 2011.

-Becky Socha, MS, MLS(ASCP)CM BB CM graduated from Merrimack College in N. Andover, Massachusetts with a BS in Medical Technology and completed her MS in Clinical Laboratory Sciences at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell. She has worked as a Medical Technologist for over 30 years. She’s worked in all areas of the clinical laboratory, but has a special interest in Hematology and Blood Banking. When she’s not busy being a mad scientist, she can be found outside riding her bicycle.

A Med Tech Gives a TEDx Talk

Hello again everyone!

After a lot of positive responses and sharing on social media, my article last month got lots of people talking about annual meetings and how great they are for networking, learning, and advancing our profession. Not too long after the ASCP Annual Meeting in Phoenix, I was back in my Manhattan apartment working on my speech and graphics for a real life TEDx session hosted at my medical school.

Let’s pause here: if you either haven’t heard of the TED/TEDx brand or if you binge watch their 18 minute videos and want more links to watch now, now, now!

TED is a non-profit organization whose mission is to share “ideas worth spreading.” They’re about 35 years old and based in NYC stateside, and Vancouver in Canada. Basically, over the last few decades they hold conferences at those flagship sites called “TED talks” where selected speakers present on a myriad of topics. TEDx conferences are officially licensed but off-site events which operate under TED protocol and guidelines. There have even been spin-off conferences like TED MED, which focus solely on healthcare.

Image 1. What’s a TEDx talk? Basically, an off-site, officially sanctioned, “idea sharing” conference.

Some of the students at AUC School of Medicine, organized such a conference with official TED licensing and recruited me to join their list of speakers to deliver talks on their chosen theme: resilience. Officially called TEDxAUCMed, this conference included community members, students, artists, activists, and more discussing the human capacity for resilience in ways not commonly discussed. “Weathering the Storm” was the official event title, as the school located in the island nation of St. Maarten displays daily resilience especially since being hit by Hurricane Irma in 2016. Among their list of incredible speakers, I was humbled to be included! I titled my talk “Unrecognizable Medicine” and wanted to deliver a talk to students, clinicians, and those of us in medicine witnessing first-hand a tidal wave of new technologies and paradigms that redefine the way we discuss health. Oh, and since I’m a huge fan of #GraphicMedicine more and more each day, I hit that hashtag hard and decided to illustrate my whole talk!

Image 2. Title Card from my TEDx talk.

So what did I talk about, exactly…and what’s the big deal? I’m not going to re-hash my presentation for you in text—that’d be boring, and I’m obviously going to put a link at the bottom for you to watch it yourself. I got you, lab fam! But essentially, what I set up was a three-tiered template to assess and navigate that tidal wave of tech. Tools, skills, and strengths—three things inherent to the practice of medicine in any specialty.

Image 3. Red back-ligting. So intense. Thanks for coming to my TEDx Talk, literally!

There are untapped topics in medicine which are looming over the horizon. As medicine continues to evolve and change, the problems we face and the needs we must meet will become moving targets. New specialties will emerge, and new technologies will replace centuries old tools we cling to today. A shift in thinking is both proactive and healthy in a profession that mandates our commitment to preserving health and quality of life. I have spent years battling stereotypes in medicine and hope to challenge the fabric that places individuals in professional or academic boxes. Fresh first-years at some schools are already using point-of-care ultrasounds (POCUSes) instead of stethoscopes—which student sounds like they have better info on morning rounds, a student who maybe kinda-sorta heard some non-descript murmur, or a mini-pocket echocardiogram with an ejection fraction of 45%? Stereotypes have too long shaped the way students choose specialties, equating some areas to colloquial high school cliques! No offense to orthopedics or dermatology. Troponins used to be something you could hang your white coat on, but not anymore. What do you do with a new 5th generation Trop of 39 with a delta of 18? ACS or acute MI? Cancer therapy is exploding with personalized treatments being added every day! Any student right now would impress their heme/onc attending on rounds if they suggested PDL-1 and other immunotherapy testing for patients with newly diagnosed lung cancers. *Deep breath*

Ok. My point is, tomorrow’s medicine is going to have a lot of different therapies, tools, and even vocabulary that schools may never catch up with. How do you prepare for this explosion of knowledge? You look to yourself to take an inventory of your strengths and use those to guide your clinical sails. Addressing stereotypes head-on, learning on the spot, dealing with complex identities in your patients, and always practicing with compassion will lend itself to staying ahead and staying fulfilled.

Image 4. If you’re drawing cartoons of pathologists for an educational series, you probably make them look like you. Or in this case me, I guess. Keep an eye out for my #PathDoodles on social media!

Pretty heavy stuff right? But there’s something else that caught my attention in reflection on the TEDx talk… I’ve searched the TED library of videos, and while there are plenty of doctors, scientists, and pioneers in research discussing medical ideas, I haven’t seen any medical laboratory scientists. If you find any, please correct me. But, as I understand it, it’s just me. And that’s something special.

Image 5. My wife and I check-in for rehearsal at the TEDxAUCMed conference in sunny St. Maarten.

There’s a culture shift in our profession, and a lot of us are talking about it. Pathology and laboratory medicine are stepping out from behind the healthcare curtain and asserting itself as a champion for patients, truth, and the importance of data-driven medicine. Not only do I talk to groups of folks every time I get a stage, but I use social media to reach clinicians and patients! Yes, I’m one of few medical students-turned-residency applicants who didn’t change their name to hide their online presence for the winter. But instead of a secret twitter hibernation, I’ve used social media as a tool to network, engage, and connect.

One of my favorite new projects is something I call #PathDoodles where I break down the aspects of pathology and some specialty topics for those outside of medicine (and sometimes just outside our profession). I’ve already covered things like “what is pathology?” and the importance of autopsies, the role of medical laboratory scientists, and I continue to add more regularly!

Image 6. One of a growing list of #PathDoodles.

There’s a culture shift in our profession, and a lot of us are talking about it. Pathology and laboratory medicine are stepping out from behind the healthcare curtain and asserting itself as a champion for patients, truth, and the importance of data-driven medicine. Not only do I talk to groups of folks every time I get a stage, but I use social media to reach clinicians and patients! Yes, I’m one of few medical students-turned-residency applicants who didn’t change their name to hide their online presence for the winter. But instead of a secret twitter hibernation, I’ve used social media as a tool to network, engage, and connect.

One of my favorite new projects is something I call #PathDoodles where I break down the aspects of pathology and some specialty topics for those outside of medicine (and sometimes just outside our profession). I’ve already covered things like “what is pathology?” and the importance of autopsies, the role of medical laboratory scientists, and I continue to add more regularly!

Follow me on Twitter (@CEKanakisMD) and check out my TEDx talk:

My talk begins at 5:00:00. Enjoy!

Constantine E. Kanakis MD, MSc, MLS (ASCP)CM completed his BS at Loyola University Chicago and his MS at Rush University. He writes about experiences through medical school through the lens of a medical lab scientist with interests in hematopathology, molecular, bioethics, transfusion medicine, and graphic medicine. He is currently a 2020 AP/CP Residency Applicant and actively involved in public health and education, advocating for visibility and advancement of pathology and lab medicine. Follow him on Twitter @CEKanakisMD