Alexi Baidoshvili1, Anca Bucur2, Jasper van Leeuwen2, Jeroen van der Laak3, Philip Kluin4, Paul J van Diest5. 1. Laboratory of Pathology East Netherlands (LabPON), Hengelo, The Netherlands. 2. Philips Research Europe, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 3. Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 4. University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 5. University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The benefits of digital pathology for workflow improvement and thereby cost savings in pathology, at least partly outweighing investment costs, are being increasingly recognised. Successful implementations in a variety of scenarios have started to demonstrate the cost benefits of digital pathology for both research and routine diagnosis, contributing to a sound business case encouraging further adoption. To further support new adopters, there is still a need for detailed assessment of the impact that this technology has on the relevant pathology workflows, with an emphasis on time-saving. AIMS: To assess the impact of digital pathology adoption on logistic laboratory tasks (i.e. not including pathologists' time for diagnosis-making) in the Laboratorium Pathologie Oost Nederland, a large regional pathology laboratory in The Netherlands. METHODS AND RESULTS: To quantify the benefits of digitisation, we analysed the differences between the traditional analogue and new digital workflows, carried out detailed measurements of all relevant steps in key analogue and digital processes, and compared the time spent. We modelled and assessed the logistic savings in five workflows: (i) routine diagnosis; (ii) multidisciplinary meeting; (iii) external revision requests; (iv) extra stainings; and (v) external consultation. On average, >19 working hours were saved on a typical day by working digitally, with the highest savings in routine diagnosis and multidisciplinary meeting workflows. CONCLUSIONS: By working digitally, a significant amount of time could be saved in a large regional pathology laboratory with a typical case mix. We also present the data in each workflow per task and concrete logistic steps to allow extrapolation to the context and case mix of other laboratories.
BACKGROUND: The benefits of digital pathology for workflow improvement and thereby cost savings in pathology, at least partly outweighing investment costs, are being increasingly recognised. Successful implementations in a variety of scenarios have started to demonstrate the cost benefits of digital pathology for both research and routine diagnosis, contributing to a sound business case encouraging further adoption. To further support new adopters, there is still a need for detailed assessment of the impact that this technology has on the relevant pathology workflows, with an emphasis on time-saving. AIMS: To assess the impact of digital pathology adoption on logistic laboratory tasks (i.e. not including pathologists' time for diagnosis-making) in the Laboratorium Pathologie Oost Nederland, a large regional pathology laboratory in The Netherlands. METHODS AND RESULTS: To quantify the benefits of digitisation, we analysed the differences between the traditional analogue and new digital workflows, carried out detailed measurements of all relevant steps in key analogue and digital processes, and compared the time spent. We modelled and assessed the logistic savings in five workflows: (i) routine diagnosis; (ii) multidisciplinary meeting; (iii) external revision requests; (iv) extra stainings; and (v) external consultation. On average, >19 working hours were saved on a typical day by working digitally, with the highest savings in routine diagnosis and multidisciplinary meeting workflows. CONCLUSIONS: By working digitally, a significant amount of time could be saved in a large regional pathology laboratory with a typical case mix. We also present the data in each workflow per task and concrete logistic steps to allow extrapolation to the context and case mix of other laboratories.
Authors: Kenneth A Fleming; Susan Horton; Michael L Wilson; Rifat Atun; Kristen DeStigter; John Flanigan; Shahin Sayed; Pierrick Adam; Bertha Aguilar; Savvas Andronikou; Catharina Boehme; William Cherniak; Annie Ny Cheung; Bernice Dahn; Lluis Donoso-Bach; Tania Douglas; Patricia Garcia; Sarwat Hussain; Hari S Iyer; Mikashmi Kohli; Alain B Labrique; Lai-Meng Looi; John G Meara; John Nkengasong; Madhukar Pai; Kara-Lee Pool; Kaushik Ramaiya; Lee Schroeder; Devanshi Shah; Richard Sullivan; Bien-Soo Tan; Kamini Walia Journal: Lancet Date: 2021-10-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Matthew G Hanna; Orly Ardon; Victor E Reuter; Sahussapont Joseph Sirintrapun; Christine England; David S Klimstra; Meera R Hameed Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Minne L N Mikkelsen; Marianne H Frederiksen; Niels Marcussen; Bethany Williams; Kristian Kidholm Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-14 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Xiang Li; Richard C Davis; Yuemei Xu; Zehan Wang; Nao Souma; Gina Sotolongo; Jonathan Bell; Matthew Ellis; David Howell; Xiling Shen; Kyle J Lafata; Laura Barisoni Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2021-12-20
Authors: Ahmed Serag; Adrian Ion-Margineanu; Hammad Qureshi; Ryan McMillan; Marie-Judith Saint Martin; Jim Diamond; Paul O'Reilly; Peter Hamilton Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2019-10-01
Authors: Nikolas Stathonikos; Tri Q Nguyen; Clothaire P Spoto; Marina A M Verdaasdonk; Paul J van Diest Journal: Histopathology Date: 2019-09-12 Impact factor: 5.087
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