Literature DB >> 9591201

Can we improve breast pathology reporting practices? A community-based breast pathology quality improvement program in New Hampshire.

P A Carney1, M S Eliassen, W A Wells, W G Swartz.   

Abstract

We implemented a regional quality assurance program in New Hampshire (NH) to evaluate breast pathology practices and attempt to improve the completeness of information provided in breast surgical pathology reports. We also assessed the degree to which NH pathologists agree with National Guidelines. The program's objective was to promote a consistent standard of care for patients whose breast pathology is interpreted in NH. Using a sequential survey technique, we were able to obtain consensus on breast tissue report content that was similar to National Guidelines. We also found that 52% of the reporting elements improved in the post-intervention period, although only one reached statistical significance. In conclusion, pathology interpretation is the "gold standard" for determining both screening effectiveness and subsequent treatment of breast cancer, yet variability in breast tissue reporting exists. It is critical that more research be done to improve breast pathology interpretation and reporting practices.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9591201     DOI: 10.1023/a:1018779022971

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Community Health        ISSN: 0094-5145


  10 in total

Review 1.  Processing and evaluation of breast excision specimens. A clinically oriented approach.

Authors:  S J Schnitt; J L Connolly
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 2.493

2.  The cost-effectiveness of mammographic screening strategies.

Authors:  K K Lindfors; C J Rosenquist
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-09-20       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  The New Hampshire Mammography Network: the development and design of a population-based registry.

Authors:  P A Carney; S P Poplack; W A Wells; B Littenberg
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Statewide study of diagnostic agreement in breast pathology.

Authors:  W A Wells; P A Carney; M S Eliassen; A N Tosteson; E R Greenberg
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1998-01-21       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database.

Authors:  R Ballard-Barbash; S H Taplin; B C Yankaskas; V L Ernster; R D Rosenberg; P A Carney; W E Barlow; B M Geller; K Kerlikowske; B K Edwards; C F Lynch; N Urban; C A Chrvala; C R Key; S P Poplack; J K Worden; L G Kessler
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Recommendations for the reporting of breast carcinoma. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology.

Authors: 
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 2.493

7.  Recommendations of the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Part I. Immediate management of mammographically detected breast lesions.

Authors: 
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 3.466

8.  Mammographically directed breast biopsies: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of clinical physician expectations and of specimen handling and reporting characteristics in 434 institutions.

Authors:  R E Nakhleh; B Jones; R J Zarbo
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 5.534

9.  Effectiveness of screening for breast cancer in women under 50 years at entry: the Kotka pilot project in Finland.

Authors:  M Hakama; E Pukkala; M Kallio; K Godenhjelm; U Svinhufvud
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  1995-09-27       Impact factor: 7.396

10.  Report of the International Workshop on Screening for Breast Cancer.

Authors:  S W Fletcher; W Black; R Harris; B K Rimer; S Shapiro
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1993-10-20       Impact factor: 13.506

  10 in total
  1 in total

1.  Diagnostic concordance among pathologists interpreting breast biopsy specimens.

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

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.