Berta M Geller1, Heidi D Nelson2, Donald L Weaver3, Paul D Frederick4, Kimberly H Allison5, Tracy Onega6, Patricia A Carney7, Anna N A Tosteson8, Joann G Elmore4. 1. Department of Family Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA. 2. Departments of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology and Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University; and Providence Cancer Center, Portland, Oregon, USA. 3. Department of Pathology, University of Vermont and UVM Cancer Center, Burlington, Vermont, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. 5. Department of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA. 6. Departments of Biomedical Data Science and Epidemiology, Norris Cotton Cancer Center and The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, One Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA. 7. Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA. 8. Norris Cotton Cancer Center and The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, One Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: Second opinions in pathology improve patient safety by reducing diagnostic errors, leading to more appropriate clinical treatment decisions. Little objective data are available regarding the factors triggering a request for second opinion despite second opinion consultations being part of the diagnostic system of pathology. Therefore we sought to assess breast biopsy cases and interpreting pathologists characteristics associated with second opinion requests. METHODS: Collected pathologist surveys and their interpretations of 60 test set cases were used to explore the relationships between case characteristics, pathologist characteristics and case perceptions, and requests for second opinions. Data were evaluated by logistic regression and generalised estimating equations. RESULTS: 115 pathologists provided 6900 assessments; pathologists requested second opinions on 70% (4827/6900) of their assessments 36% (1731/4827) of these would not have been required by policy. All associations between case characteristics and requesting second opinions were statistically significant, including diagnostic category, breast density, biopsy type, and number of diagnoses noted per case. Exclusive of institutional policies, pathologists wanted second opinions most frequently for atypia (66%) and least frequently for invasive cancer (20%). Second opinion rates were higher when the pathologist had lower assessment confidence, in cases with higher perceived difficulty, and cases with borderline diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Pathologists request second opinions for challenging cases, particularly those with atypia, high breast density, core needle biopsies, or many co-existing diagnoses. Further studies should evaluate whether the case characteristics identified in this study could be used as clinical criteria to prompt system-level strategies for mandating second opinions. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
AIMS: Second opinions in pathology improve patient safety by reducing diagnostic errors, leading to more appropriate clinical treatment decisions. Little objective data are available regarding the factors triggering a request for second opinion despite second opinion consultations being part of the diagnostic system of pathology. Therefore we sought to assess breast biopsy cases and interpreting pathologists characteristics associated with second opinion requests. METHODS: Collected pathologist surveys and their interpretations of 60 test set cases were used to explore the relationships between case characteristics, pathologist characteristics and case perceptions, and requests for second opinions. Data were evaluated by logistic regression and generalised estimating equations. RESULTS: 115 pathologists provided 6900 assessments; pathologists requested second opinions on 70% (4827/6900) of their assessments 36% (1731/4827) of these would not have been required by policy. All associations between case characteristics and requesting second opinions were statistically significant, including diagnostic category, breast density, biopsy type, and number of diagnoses noted per case. Exclusive of institutional policies, pathologists wanted second opinions most frequently for atypia (66%) and least frequently for invasive cancer (20%). Second opinion rates were higher when the pathologist had lower assessment confidence, in cases with higher perceived difficulty, and cases with borderline diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Pathologists request second opinions for challenging cases, particularly those with atypia, high breast density, core needle biopsies, or many co-existing diagnoses. Further studies should evaluate whether the case characteristics identified in this study could be used as clinical criteria to prompt system-level strategies for mandating second opinions. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Entities:
Keywords:
BREAST CANCER; BREAST PATHOLOGY; DIAGNOSIS; LABORATORY MANAGEMENT
Authors: Suling J Lin; Jennifer Cawson; Prue Hill; Izhak Haviv; Mark Jenkins; John L Hopper; Melissa C Southey; Ian G Campbell; Erik W Thompson Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-01-22 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Joann G Elmore; Gary M Longton; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Tracy Onega; Anna N A Tosteson; Heidi D Nelson; Margaret S Pepe; Kimberly H Allison; Stuart J Schnitt; Frances P O'Malley; Donald L Weaver Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Joann G Elmore; Heidi D Nelson; Margaret S Pepe; Gary M Longton; Anna N A Tosteson; Berta Geller; Tracy Onega; Patricia A Carney; Sara L Jackson; Kimberly H Allison; Donald L Weaver Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-03-22 Impact factor: 25.391
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
Authors: Salem Alowami; Sandra Troup; Sahar Al-Haddad; Iain Kirkpatrick; Peter H Watson Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2003-07-23 Impact factor: 6.466
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