OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to optimize intraoperative neuropathology consultations by studying trends and sources of diagnostic error. We hypothesized that errors in intraoperative diagnoses would have sampling, technical, and interpretive sources. The study also audited diagnostic strengths, weaknesses and trends associated with increasing experience. We hypothesized that errors would decline and that the accuracy of "qualified" diagnoses would improve with experience. METHODS: The pathologist's first 100 cases (P1), second 100 (P2), and most recent 100 (P3, after ten years in practice) formed the data set. Intraoperative diagnoses were scored as correct, minor error or major error using the final diagnosis as the gold-standard. Incorrect diagnoses were re-examined by two reviewers to identify sources of error. RESULTS: Among the 300 cases there were 22 errors with 11 in P1, 9 in P2 and 2 in P3. Sampling contributed to 17 errors (77%), technical factors to 7 (32%) and interpretive factors to 16 (73%). Improvement in diagnostic accuracy between P1 and P2 (p = 0.8143), or P2 and P3 (p = 0.0582) did not reach significance. However, significant improvement was found between P1 and P3 (p = 0.0184). CONCLUSION: The present study was a practical and informative audit for the pathologist and trainees. It reaffirmed the accuracy of intraoperative neuropathology diagnoses and informed our understanding of sources of error. Most errors were due to a combination of sampling, technical and interpretive factors. A significant improvement in diagnostic proficiency was observed with increasing experience.
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to optimize intraoperative neuropathology consultations by studying trends and sources of diagnostic error. We hypothesized that errors in intraoperative diagnoses would have sampling, technical, and interpretive sources. The study also audited diagnostic strengths, weaknesses and trends associated with increasing experience. We hypothesized that errors would decline and that the accuracy of "qualified" diagnoses would improve with experience. METHODS: The pathologist's first 100 cases (P1), second 100 (P2), and most recent 100 (P3, after ten years in practice) formed the data set. Intraoperative diagnoses were scored as correct, minor error or major error using the final diagnosis as the gold-standard. Incorrect diagnoses were re-examined by two reviewers to identify sources of error. RESULTS: Among the 300 cases there were 22 errors with 11 in P1, 9 in P2 and 2 in P3. Sampling contributed to 17 errors (77%), technical factors to 7 (32%) and interpretive factors to 16 (73%). Improvement in diagnostic accuracy between P1 and P2 (p = 0.8143), or P2 and P3 (p = 0.0582) did not reach significance. However, significant improvement was found between P1 and P3 (p = 0.0184). CONCLUSION: The present study was a practical and informative audit for the pathologist and trainees. It reaffirmed the accuracy of intraoperative neuropathology diagnoses and informed our understanding of sources of error. Most errors were due to a combination of sampling, technical and interpretive factors. A significant improvement in diagnostic proficiency was observed with increasing experience.
Authors: Brian T Ragel; Timothy C Ryken; Steven N Kalkanis; Mateo Ziu; Daniel Cahill; Jeffrey J Olson Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Jakob Straehle; Daniel Erny; Nicolas Neidert; Dieter Henrik Heiland; Amir El Rahal; Vlad Sacalean; David Steybe; Rainer Schmelzeisen; Andreas Vlachos; Boris Mizaikoff; Peter Christoph Reinacher; Volker Arnd Coenen; Marco Prinz; Jürgen Beck; Oliver Schnell Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2021-12-10 Impact factor: 3.042