"keith kuhn" <krkuhn@adelphia.net> wrote in message 
news:3KSdncQvbNbWp9TYnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@adelphia.com...
> I have not found a standardized reference.   Perhaps this because it is
> considered relatively unimportant. (? :-) )  I have just read a Candian
> study on the subject that concludes that the physicians  should setup the
> grading system....dumb, stupid, ...god would that be wonderiful!   The
> tables I see are not practical for routine use.  The grading listed in
> these tables are not consistent between different shapes and sizes.   I
> know there is an old reference (help!) out there, but am unsure if it is
> practical for todays environment.  I have based our "+" (plus) system (1-4)
> on rough number of occurances over four field of veiw at 100 x.  E.g. +1 in
> 25% of the fields, +2 in 50% of the fields, +3 at least once in every
> field, and +4 occuring multiply times in one field of view.  Simple!   I
> don't want the techs to have to be refering to a table every time.  Of
> course, what seems practical and wise to one in isolation may be exposed as
> a whim.  Input welcome.


Did anyone come up with a reference or an answer to this  - I've been 
charged with sorting out something along these lines for our network (4 NHS 
trusts with eight seperate haematology labs)