Stephen S Raab1, Raouf E Nakhleh, Stephen G Ruby. 1. Department of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh, UPMC Shadyside Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pa 15232, USA. raabss@msx.upmc.edu
Abstract
CONTEXT: Anatomic pathology discrepancy frequencies have not been rigorously studied. OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of anatomic pathology discrepancies and the causes of these discrepancies. DESIGN: Participants in the College of American Pathologists Q-Probes program self-reported the number of anatomic pathology discrepancies in their laboratories by prospectively performing secondary review (post-sign-out) of 100 surgical pathology or cytology specimens. Reasons for the secondary review included conferences, external review, internal quality assurance policy, and physician request. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-four laboratories self-reported data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency of anatomic pathology discrepancy; type of discrepancy (ie, change in margin status, change in diagnosis, change in patient information, or typographic error); effect of discrepancy on patient outcome (ie, no harm, near miss, or harm); and clarity of report. RESULTS: The mean and median laboratory discrepancy frequencies were 6.7% and 5.1%, respectively. Forty-eight percent of all discrepancies were due to a change within the same category of interpretation (eg, 1 tumor type was changed to another tumor type). Twenty-one percent of all discrepancies were due to a change across categories of interpretation (eg, a benign diagnosis was changed to a malignant diagnosis). Although the majority of discrepancies had no effect on patient care, 5.3% had a moderate or marked effect on patient care.Conclusions.-This study establishes a mean multi-institutional discrepancy frequency (related to secondary review) of 6.7%.
CONTEXT: Anatomic pathology discrepancy frequencies have not been rigorously studied. OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of anatomic pathology discrepancies and the causes of these discrepancies. DESIGN:Participants in the College of American Pathologists Q-Probes program self-reported the number of anatomic pathology discrepancies in their laboratories by prospectively performing secondary review (post-sign-out) of 100 surgical pathology or cytology specimens. Reasons for the secondary review included conferences, external review, internal quality assurance policy, and physician request. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-four laboratories self-reported data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency of anatomic pathology discrepancy; type of discrepancy (ie, change in margin status, change in diagnosis, change in patient information, or typographic error); effect of discrepancy on patient outcome (ie, no harm, near miss, or harm); and clarity of report. RESULTS: The mean and median laboratory discrepancy frequencies were 6.7% and 5.1%, respectively. Forty-eight percent of all discrepancies were due to a change within the same category of interpretation (eg, 1 tumor type was changed to another tumor type). Twenty-one percent of all discrepancies were due to a change across categories of interpretation (eg, a benign diagnosis was changed to a malignant diagnosis). Although the majority of discrepancies had no effect on patient care, 5.3% had a moderate or marked effect on patient care.Conclusions.-This study establishes a mean multi-institutional discrepancy frequency (related to secondary review) of 6.7%.
Authors: Maurice B Loughrey; Paul J Kelly; Oisin P Houghton; Helen G Coleman; Joseph P Houghton; Anne Carson; Manuel Salto-Tellez; Peter W Hamilton Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2015-05-16 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: M Babawale; A Gunavardhan; J Walker; T Corfield; P Huey; A Savage; A Bansal; M Atkinson; H Abdelsalam; E Raweily; A Christian; I Evangelou; D Thomas; J Shannon; E Youd; P Brumwell; J Harrison; I Thompson; M Rashid; G Leopold; A Finall; S Roberts; D Housa; P Nedeva; A Davies; D Fletcher; Muhammad Aslam Journal: J Pathol Inform Date: 2021-01-23
Authors: Bin Xu; Ronald Ghossein; Alan Ho; Kartik Viswanathan; Anjanie Khimraj; Maelle Saliba; Jennifer R Cracchiolo; Nora Katabi Journal: Head Neck Date: 2021-04-24 Impact factor: 3.821
Authors: Yaqin Chen; Anthony Bekhash; Albert J Kovatich; Jeffrey A Hooke; Jianfang Liu; Leonid Kvecher; J Leigh Fantacone-Campbell; Edith P Mitchell; Hallgeir Rui; Richard J Mural; Craig D Shriver; Hai Hu Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-06-22 Impact factor: 3.240