Color Vision Deficiency Survey in Anatomic Pathology

Abstract

Abstract Objectives To learn what color vision–deficient pathologists and cytotechnologists consider their most significant problems and advantages as well as any accommodations. Methods An anonymous online survey developed for practicing pathologists and cytotechnologists regarding their experiences with stains was sent to the members of 4 national societies. Results We received 377 responses. Twenty-three people, all men, identified themselves as color vision deficient, with 22 reporting red-green color vision deficiency and 1 reporting uncertain type. Eight pathologists and cytotechnologists indicated that they thought that their color vision deficiency conferred advantages to them, including a greater appreciation of morphology, with less confusion resulting from variations in stain quality or intensity. Nineteen pathologists and cytotechnologists thought that their color vision deficiency conferred disadvantages; the most common disadvantages stated were the identification of eosinophils and acid-fast bacilli. Other difficulties included interpretation of RBCs and nucleoli and sometimes Alcian blue, Brown and Brenn, Congo red, crystal violet, Fite, Giemsa, mucicarmine, periodic acid–Schiff, and fluorescence in situ hybridization stains. Only 2 of the color vision–deficient pathologists and cytotechnologists found digital slides more difficult than glass slides. Conclusions Color vision–deficient pathologists and cytotechnologists report that they have developed approaches to viewing slides that do not compromise their interpretations. Digital pathology may provide several approaches for aiding color vision–deficient pathologists with the interpretation of certain stains.