Literature DB >> 20441505

Surgical pathology case reviews before sign-out: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 45 laboratories.

Raouf E Nakhleh1, Leonas G Bekeris, Rhona J Souers, Frederick A Meier, Joseph A Tworek.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: To avoid errors many surgical pathology services mandate review of a case by a second pathologist before reports are released (signed out).
OBJECTIVE: To study the extent and characteristics of such review.
DESIGN: Participants retrospectively examined up to 400 cases to identify a maximum of 30 cases reviewed by at least one additional pathologist before sign-out. For each case, participants documented the organ system, primary disease type, number of additional pathologists consulted, and the reason for case review. The main outcome measure was the fraction of surgical pathology cases that underwent second pathologist review before sign-out.
RESULTS: From 45 laboratories, examination of 18 032 surgical pathology cases yielded 1183 (6.6%) cases that had been reviewed before sign-out. The median laboratory reviewed 8.2% of cases. Three-fifths of reviews focused on 4 organ systems: gastrointestinal (20.5%), breast (16.0%), skin (12.7%), and female genital tract (10.0%). Malignant neoplasm far exceeded all other categories of disease in reviewed cases (45.3%). Cases were reviewed by one additional pathologist 78% of the time. Two dominant reasons for case review emerged: difficult diagnosis (46.2%) and audit required by departmental policy (43.0%). Most laboratories (71%) had departmental policies regarding review of cases. These laboratories reviewed cases about 33% more often than laboratories without policies (9.6% versus 6.5%).
CONCLUSIONS: Review of selected surgical pathology cases before sign-out is widely accepted with 71% of participant laboratories following policies to this effect. About 1 case in 15 (6.6%) were reviewed with the median laboratory of participants reviewing about 1 in 12 (8.2%).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20441505     DOI: 10.5858/134.5.740

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med        ISSN: 0003-9985            Impact factor:   5.534


  9 in total

1.  The feasibility of computer-aided monitoring of the workflow in surgical pathology: a five-year experience.

Authors:  Chih-En Tseng; Hsiu-Huei Chiang; Liang-Yu Shih; Kai-Sheng Liao
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2014-02-04       Impact factor: 4.460

2.  Double reporting and second opinion in head and neck pathology.

Authors:  Julia A Woolgar; Asterios Triantafyllou; Lester D R Thompson; Jennifer L Hunt; James S Lewis; Michelle D Williams; Antonio Cardesa; Alessandra Rinaldo; Leon Barnes; Pieter J Slootweg; Kenneth O Devaney; Douglas R Gnepp; William H Westra; Alfio Ferlito
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2014-01-17       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  Pathologists' Use of Second Opinions in Interpretation of Melanocytic Cutaneous Lesions: Policies, Practices, and Perceptions.

Authors:  Berta M Geller; Paul D Frederick; Stevan R Knezevich; Jason P Lott; Heidi D Nelson; Linda J Titus; Patricia A Carney; Anna N A Tosteson; Tracy L Onega; Raymond L Barnhill; Martin A Weinstock; David E Elder; Michael W Piepkorn; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Dermatol Surg       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 3.398

4.  Second opinion in breast pathology: policy, practice and perception.

Authors:  Berta M Geller; Heidi D Nelson; Patricia A Carney; Donald L Weaver; Tracy Onega; Kimberly H Allison; Paul D Frederick; Anna N A Tosteson; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2014-07-22       Impact factor: 3.411

5.  Complexities of perceived and actual performance in pathology interpretation: A comparison of cutaneous melanocytic skin and breast interpretations.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Paul D Frederick; Lisa M Reisch; Linda Titus; Stevan R Knezevich; Martin A Weinstock; Michael W Piepkorn; Raymond L Barnhill; David E Elder; Donald L Weaver; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  J Cutan Pathol       Date:  2018-04-26       Impact factor: 1.587

6.  The effects of a regional telepathology project: a study protocol.

Authors:  Marie-Claude Trudel; Guy Paré; Bernard Têtu; Claude Sicotte
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2012-03-15       Impact factor: 2.655

7.  Overinterpretation is common in pathological diagnosis of appendix cancer during patient referral for oncologic care.

Authors:  Mark A Valasek; Irene Thung; Esha Gollapalle; Alexey A Hodkoff; Kaitlyn J Kelly; Joel M Baumgartner; Vera Vavinskaya; Grace Y Lin; Ann P Tipps; Mojgan V Hosseini; Andrew M Lowy
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-06-07       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Dissecting the Business Case for Adoption and Implementation of Digital Pathology: A White Paper from the Digital Pathology Association.

Authors:  Giovanni Lujan; Jennifer C Quigley; Douglas Hartman; Anil Parwani; Brian Roehmholdt; Bryan Van Meter; Orly Ardon; Matthew G Hanna; Dan Kelly; Chelsea Sowards; Michael Montalto; Marilyn Bui; Mark D Zarella; Victoria LaRosa; Gerard Slootweg; Juan Antonio Retamero; Mark C Lloyd; James Madory; Doug Bowman
Journal:  J Pathol Inform       Date:  2021-04-07

9.  Evaluation of 12 strategies for obtaining second opinions to improve interpretation of breast histopathology: simulation study.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Anna Na Tosteson; Margaret S Pepe; Gary M Longton; Heidi D Nelson; Berta Geller; Patricia A Carney; Tracy Onega; Kimberly H Allison; Sara L Jackson; Donald L Weaver
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2016-06-22
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.