Challenges and opportunities in the adoption of College of American Pathologists checklists in electronic format: perspectives and experience of Reporting Pathology Protocols Project (RPP2) participant laboratories.

CONTEXT: The site-specific cancer checklists developed by the College of American Pathologists have the potential to improve the quality of data derived from pathology reports and incorporated into cancer registry databases and are now mandated report elements by various accrediting bodies. A pilot project, funded by the Centers for Disease Control National Project for Cancer Registries in 2004, brought 4 pathology services in 3 states, with differing baseline implementations of the checklists, the opportunity to partner with their state National Project for Cancer Registry and their laboratory information system vendors to evaluate the feasibility of using electronically encoded College of American Pathologists cancer checklists for melanoma and tumors of the breast and prostate.
OBJECTIVES: To identify existing and potential barriers to adoption of electronically encoded checklists and to also identify unique benefits not associated with text-only uses of the checklists.
DESIGN: Participants mapped an implementation process from their current state to an electronic checklist-capable state. For a sample of cases of melanoma, prostate, and breast cancers, the checklist elements were captured and transmitted to the registry using Health Level 7 (version 2.3.1). Process assessments with adoption of electronic checklists were conducted to assess pathologist effect and other potential barriers. An evaluation of the utility and usefulness of electronic checklists was performed after the project.
RESULTS: All 4 laboratories successfully performed the capture of individual data elements from the College of American Pathologists checklist into a discrete format suitable for electronic transmission. The effect on pathologist performance and laboratory workflow was neutral. Points of resistance were identified in the checklists and in individual users. Specific challenges in individual laboratories varied according to the personnel and the baseline system in use. Clinical responses to implemented changes were generally positive. Analysis of the postproject experiences of the laboratories showed expansion of use and additional utility in some, but not all, laboratories.
CONCLUSIONS: Pathology laboratory adoption of the College of American Pathologists cancer checklists in an electronic format suited to direct transmission to cancer registries poses business case, information technology, and human resource challenges. Laboratory information system vendor readiness to upgrade systems to facilitate this process helps to reduce some of these challenges. Personalities and preferences in practices may yet pose barriers to widespread adoption.