Quality and liability issues with the Papanicolaou smear: Lessons from the science of error prevention

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 121, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 287-291

  Derman, Herbert ^a,b  

^a THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER MORTALITY; CONFERENCE PAPER; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; INSURANCE; LAW SUIT; MORBIDITY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PREVALENCE; QUALITY CONTROL; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER;

DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LIABILITY, LEGAL; PATHOLOGY, CLINICAL; PATIENT ADVOCACY; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL; UTERINE CERVICAL DISEASES; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0030894034     PISSN: 00039985     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Perrow C. Normal Accidents: Living With High-Risk Technologies. New York, NY: Basic Books Inc; 1984.
2. McIntyre N, Popper KB. The critical attitude in medicine. Br Med J. 1983:287:1919-1923.
3. Blumenthal D. Making medical errors into "medical treasures." JAMA. 1994;272:1867-1868.
4. Leape LL. Error in medicine. JAMA. 1994;272:1851-1857.
5. Reason J. Human Error. Cambridge, Mass: Cambridge University Press; 1992.
6. Rasmussen V, Jensen A. Mental procedures in real-life tasks: a case study of electronic trouble-shooting, Ergonomics. 1974;17:293-307.
7. DeMay RM. The Art & Science of Cytopathology. Chicago, Ill: ASCP Press; 1996. Excerpted in Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1997;121:229-238.
8. DeMay RM. The Art & Science of Cytopathology. Chicago, Ill: ASCP Press; 1996. Excerpted in Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1997;121:229-238.
9. Miller D. Brain processing of optical input: the perception of visual reality. MD Computing, 1994;11:34-42.
10. Mitchell H, Medley G. Differences between Papanicolaou smears with correct and incorrect diagnoses. Cytopathology. 1995;6:368-375.
11. Belk WP, Sunderman FW. A survey of the accuracy of chemical analyses in clinical laboratories. Am J Clin Pathol. 1947;17:853. Reprinted in Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1988;112:320-326.
12. Belk WP, Sunderman FW. A survey of the accuracy of chemical analyses in clinical laboratories. Am J Clin Pathol. 1947;17:853. Reprinted in Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1988;112:320-326.
13. Berwick D. Improving as science. In: Blumenthal D, Scheck A, eds. Clinical Practice. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass; 1995.
14. Herbert A. Achievable Standards, Benchmarks for Reporting & Criteria for Evaluating Cervical Cytopathology. Report of a Working Party Set Up by Royal College of Pathologists, British Society for Clinical Cytology and the National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme. National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme publication 1, October 1995.
15. Patnick J. Improving the quality in cervical screening. ACP News. 1996;summer:10-11.
16. Eddy DM. Mathematical models and screening for cervical cancer. In: Grundmann E, ed. Cancer Campaign XIII, Cancer of the Uterine Cervix. Stuttgart, Germany: Fischer Verlag; 1985:1.
17. Parker SL, Tong T, Bolden S, Wingo PA. Cancer statistics. 1996. CA Cancer J Clin. 1996;46:5-27.
18. Weinert HV, Brill R. Effectiveness of hospital tissue committee in raising surgical standards. JAMA. 1952;150:992-996.