Interpretive Diagnostic Error Reduction in Surgical Pathology and Cytology Guideline From the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center and the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology

被引:45
作者
Nakhleh, Raouf E. [1 ]
Nose, Vania [2 ]
Colasacco, Carol [3 ]
Fatheree, Lisa A. [4 ]
Lillemoe, Tamera J. [5 ]
McCrory, Douglas C. [6 ]
Meier, Frederick A. [2 ,7 ]
Otis, Christopher N. [8 ]
Owens, Scott R. [9 ]
Raab, Stephen S. [10 ]
Turner, Roderick R. [11 ]
Ventura, Christina B. [4 ]
Renshaw, Andrew A. [12 ]
机构
[1] Mayo Clin, Dept Lab Med & Pathol, 4500 San Pablo Rd, Jacksonville, FL 32224 USA
[2] Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Dept Pathol, Boston, MA 02114 USA
[3] Coll Amer Pathologists, Governance, Northfield, IL USA
[4] Coll Amer Pathologists, Pathol & Lab Qual Ctr, Northfield, IL USA
[5] Abbott NW Hosp, Hosp Pathol Associates, Minneapolis, MN 55407 USA
[6] Duke Univ, Dept Med, Durham, NC USA
[7] Henry Ford Hlth Syst, Dept Pathol & Lab Med, Detroit, MI USA
[8] Baystate Med Ctr, Dept Pathol, Springfield, MA USA
[9] Univ Michigan, Sch Med, Dept Pathol, Ann Arbor, MI USA
[10] Mem Univ Newfoundland Eastern Hlth Author, Dept Pathol, St John, NF, Canada
[11] St Johns Hlth Ctr, Dept Pathol, Santa Monica, CA USA
[12] Homestead Hosp, Dept Pathol, Homestead, FL USA
关键词
MANDATORY 2ND OPINION; NEEDLE-ASPIRATION-CYTOLOGY; CLINICAL IMPACT; GYNECOLOGIC-ONCOLOGY; INTEROBSERVER REPRODUCIBILITY; 2ND-OPINION PATHOLOGY; PROSTATE BIOPSIES; SIGN-OUT; HISTOPATHOLOGICAL DIAGNOSIS; INITIAL DIAGNOSIS;
D O I
10.5858/arpa.2014-0511-SA
中图分类号
R446 [实验室诊断]; R-33 [实验医学、医学实验];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
Context.-Additional reviews of diagnostic surgical and cytology cases have been shown to detect diagnostic discrepancies. Objective.-To develop, through a systematic review of the literature, recommendations for the review of pathology cases to detect or prevent interpretive diagnostic errors. Design.-The College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center in association with the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology convened an expert panel to develop an evidence-based guideline to help define the role of case reviews in surgical pathology and cytology. A literature search was conducted to gather data on the review of cases in surgical pathology and cytology. Results.-The panel drafted 5 recommendations, with strong agreement from open comment period participants ranging from 87% to 93%. The recommendations are: (1) anatomic pathologists should develop procedures for the review of selected pathology cases to detect disagreements and potential interpretive errors; (2) anatomic pathologists should perform case reviews in a timely manner to avoid having a negative impact on patient care; (3) anatomic pathologists should have documented case review procedures that are relevant to their practice setting; (4) anatomic pathologists should continuously monitor and document the results of case reviews; and (5) if pathology case reviews show poor agreement within a defined case type, anatomic pathologists should take steps to improve agreement. Conclusions.-Evidence exists that case reviews detect errors; therefore, the expert panel recommends that anatomic pathologists develop procedures for the review of pathology cases to detect disagreements and potential interpretive errors, in order to improve the quality of patient care.
引用
收藏
页码:29 / 40
页数:12
相关论文
共 154 条
  • [81] Interobserver agreement in the interpretation of anal intraepithelial neoplasia
    Lytwyn, A
    Salit, IE
    Raboud, J
    Chapman, W
    Darragh, T
    Winkler, B
    Tinmouth, J
    Mahony, JB
    Sano, M
    [J]. CANCER, 2005, 103 (07) : 1447 - 1456
  • [82] Mandatory second opinion in surgical pathology referral material: Clinical consequences of major disagreements
    Manion, Elizabeth
    Cohen, Michael B.
    Weydert, Jamie
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY, 2008, 32 (05) : 732 - 737
  • [83] Expert second-opinion pathology review of lymphoma in the era of the World Health Organization classification
    Matasar, M. J.
    Shi, W.
    Silberstien, J.
    Lin, O.
    Busam, K. J.
    Teruya-Feldstein, J.
    Filippa, D. A.
    Zelenetz, A. D.
    Noy, A.
    [J]. ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY, 2012, 23 (01) : 159 - U400
  • [84] THE CLINICOPATHOLOGICAL MEETING - A MEANS OF AUDITING DIAGNOSTIC PERFORMANCE
    MCBROOM, HM
    RAMSAY, AD
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY, 1993, 17 (01) : 75 - 80
  • [85] Pathology review of cases presenting to a multidisciplinary pigmented lesion clinic
    McGinnis, KS
    Lessin, SR
    Elder, DE
    Guerry, D
    Schuchter, L
    Ming, M
    Elenitsas, R
    [J]. ARCHIVES OF DERMATOLOGY, 2002, 138 (05) : 617 - 621
  • [86] Study of Amended Reports to Evaluate and Improve Surgical Pathology Processes
    Meier, Frederick A.
    Varney, Ruan C.
    Zarbo, Richard J.
    [J]. ADVANCES IN ANATOMIC PATHOLOGY, 2011, 18 (05) : 406 - 413
  • [87] Discrepancy between second and first opinion in surgical oncological patients
    Mellink, WAM
    Henzen-Logmans, SC
    Bongaerts, AHH
    Ooijen, BV
    Rodenburg, CJ
    Wiggers, T
    [J]. EJSO, 2006, 32 (01): : 108 - 112
  • [88] Interobserver Variation in the Histopathologic Reporting of Key Prognostic Parameters, Particularly Clark Level, Affects Pathologic Staging of Primary Cutaneous Melanoma
    Murali, Rajmohan
    Hughes, Michael T.
    Fitzgerald, Patrick
    Thompson, John F.
    Scolyer, Richard A.
    [J]. ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2009, 249 (04) : 641 - 647
  • [89] Second opinion of anatomical pathology: A complex issue not easily reduced to matters of right and wrong
    Murphy, WM
    Rivera-Ramirez, I
    Luciani, LG
    Wajsman, Z
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2001, 165 (06) : 1957 - 1959
  • [90] Nakhleh RE, 2010, ARCH PATHOL LAB MED, V134, P740, DOI 10.1043/1543-2165-134.5.740