Curtis E Margo1. 1. Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Department of Ophthalmology, Pathology and Cell Biology, Tampa, Florida, USA.
Abstract
AIM: To describe the 5-year profile of anatomic critical diagnoses from an ophthalmic pathology laboratory and raise awareness of the challenges of establishing guidelines for these diagnoses. METHODS: Medical records of patients who had consecutively submitted surgically removed globes or eviscerated eyes from 1 October 2009 to 31 October 2014 were examined for a critical diagnosis, as defined by a verbal communication for a serious, unanticipated diagnosis.Important discordant anatomic and clinical diagnoses were reviewed to determine whether the anatomic finding was truly unanticipated. RESULTS: During the study period, 313 eyes were submitted to the laboratory as primary specimens. Twenty (6.4%) had critical (alert) diagnoses. Six of the 20 anatomic diagnoses (30%) were known or suspected prior to surgery but were not communicated on the pathology request form. Five diagnoses (25%) were not clinically suspect before surgery. In 9 cases (45%) medical-care providers were alerted to the critical findings but insufficient clinical information was provided about preoperative conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of critical diagnoses among surgically removed eyes is small, but not inconsequential. Some "critical alerts" would be unnecessary if relevant clinical information was provided when the tissue is submitted to the laboratory. Laboratory guidelines for critical values in surgical pathology should be flexible since they need to anticipate the vicissitudes of clinical practice. Surgeons need to appreciate that relevant clinical information must be provided to pathologists because it can play a role in formulating anatomic diagnoses.
AIM: To describe the 5-year profile of anatomic critical diagnoses from an ophthalmic pathology laboratory and raise awareness of the challenges of establishing guidelines for these diagnoses. METHODS: Medical records of patients who had consecutively submitted surgically removed globes or eviscerated eyes from 1 October 2009 to 31 October 2014 were examined for a critical diagnosis, as defined by a verbal communication for a serious, unanticipated diagnosis.Important discordant anatomic and clinical diagnoses were reviewed to determine whether the anatomic finding was truly unanticipated. RESULTS: During the study period, 313 eyes were submitted to the laboratory as primary specimens. Twenty (6.4%) had critical (alert) diagnoses. Six of the 20 anatomic diagnoses (30%) were known or suspected prior to surgery but were not communicated on the pathology request form. Five diagnoses (25%) were not clinically suspect before surgery. In 9 cases (45%) medical-care providers were alerted to the critical findings but insufficient clinical information was provided about preoperative conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of critical diagnoses among surgically removed eyes is small, but not inconsequential. Some "critical alerts" would be unnecessary if relevant clinical information was provided when the tissue is submitted to the laboratory. Laboratory guidelines for critical values in surgical pathology should be flexible since they need to anticipate the vicissitudes of clinical practice. Surgeons need to appreciate that relevant clinical information must be provided to pathologists because it can play a role in formulating anatomic diagnoses.
Authors: Raouf E Nakhleh; Jeffrey L Myers; Timothy C Allen; Barry R DeYoung; Patrick L Fitzgibbons; William K Funkhouser; Dina R Mody; Amy Lynn; Lisa A Fatheree; Anthony T Smith; Avtar Lal; Jan F Silverman Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2011-10-13 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Jan F Silverman; Christopher D M Fletcher; William J Frable; John R Goldblum; Telma C Pereira; Paul E Swanson Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2006-06-02 Impact factor: 3.466