BACKGROUND: Autopsies are considered an important quality assurance instrument in medicine, yet autopsy rates in many countries have been declining for many years. The proper role of the post-mortem examination in modern medicine is a matter deserving of study. METHODS: This review is based on a selective search of the literature for publications on the role of autopsies as a quality assurance instrument. RESULTS: Multiple studies have revealed substantial rates of discrepancy between pre- and post-mortem diagnoses, with reported rates lying in the range of 10% to 40%. The frequen- cy of so-called Goldman I erroneous diagnoses, i.e., those that are determined at autopsy and might have influenced the patient's survival, ranges from 2.4% to 10.7%. It can be as- sumed that the rate of serious diagnostic errors revealed by autopsy would fall if autopsy rates were to rise. Independently of the above-mentioned studies, a large-scale study of data from the period 1988-2008 revealed a decline in the rate of Goldman I erroneous diagnoses by more than half. The qualitative effects of autopsies, however, are difficult to measure. At present, imaging studies and minimally invasive or endoscopic diagnostic procedures can be performed post mortem as well, but the available studies show that these methods do not yet suffice to enable a coherent pathogenetic classification of disease processes. CONCLUSION: Autopsies should still be performed in the interest of quality assurance in medicine. Uniform standards in the performance and reporting of autopsies could lead to im- provement in the use of the data acquired through them.
BACKGROUND: Autopsies are considered an important quality assurance instrument in medicine, yet autopsy rates in many countries have been declining for many years. The proper role of the post-mortem examination in modern medicine is a matter deserving of study. METHODS: This review is based on a selective search of the literature for publications on the role of autopsies as a quality assurance instrument. RESULTS: Multiple studies have revealed substantial rates of discrepancy between pre- and post-mortem diagnoses, with reported rates lying in the range of 10% to 40%. The frequen- cy of so-called Goldman I erroneous diagnoses, i.e., those that are determined at autopsy and might have influenced the patient's survival, ranges from 2.4% to 10.7%. It can be as- sumed that the rate of serious diagnostic errors revealed by autopsy would fall if autopsy rates were to rise. Independently of the above-mentioned studies, a large-scale study of data from the period 1988-2008 revealed a decline in the rate of Goldman I erroneous diagnoses by more than half. The qualitative effects of autopsies, however, are difficult to measure. At present, imaging studies and minimally invasive or endoscopic diagnostic procedures can be performed post mortem as well, but the available studies show that these methods do not yet suffice to enable a coherent pathogenetic classification of disease processes. CONCLUSION: Autopsies should still be performed in the interest of quality assurance in medicine. Uniform standards in the performance and reporting of autopsies could lead to im- provement in the use of the data acquired through them.
Authors: Bradford Winters; Jason Custer; Samuel M Galvagno; Elizabeth Colantuoni; Shruti G Kapoor; Heewon Lee; Victoria Goode; Karen Robinson; Atul Nakhasi; Peter Pronovost; David Newman-Toker Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2012-07-21 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Steffen G Ross; Stephan A Bolliger; Garyfalia Ampanozi; Lars Oesterhelweg; Michael J Thali; Patricia M Flach Journal: Radiographics Date: 2014 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Robert Pell; S Kim Suvarna; Nigel Cooper; Guy Rutty; Anna Green; Michael Osborn; Peter Johnson; Alison Hayward; Justine Durno; Theodore Estrin-Serlui; Marion Mafham; Ian S D Roberts Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2022-01-17 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: G Cecilie Alfsen; Jacek Gulczyński; Ivana Kholová; Bart Latten; Javier Martinez; Myriam Metzger; Katarzyna Michaud; Carlos M Pontinha; Natalia Rakislova; Samuel Rotman; Zsuzsanna Varga; Katharina Wassilew; Vsevolod Zinserling Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2021-12-10 Impact factor: 4.535