What is the best indicator to determine anatomic pathology workload? Canadian experience

American Journal of Clinical Pathology

Volumn 123, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 45-55

  Maung, Raymond T A ^a  

^a ROYAL INLAND HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Anatomic pathology workload; Pathology manpower

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; BUDGET; CALCULATION; CANADA; CONSULTATION; DATA ANALYSIS; HOSPITAL DEPARTMENT; HUMAN; NORMAL HUMAN; PATHOLOGIST; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; STAFF; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; WORKLOAD;

EID: 11244255153     PISSN: 00029173     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1309/23NYGNB2HFNNW4V8     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Royal College of Pathologists. Medical and Scientific Staffing of National Health Service Pathology Departments. London, England: Royal College of Pathologists; 1999:19-22. Available at: http://rcpath.org. Accessed May 20, 2003.
2. Haber SL. Kaiser Permanente: an insider's view of the practice of pathology in an HMO hospital-based multispecialty group. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1995;119:646-649.
3. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC). National Specialty Physician Review. Ottawa, Canada: Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada; 1988:14.
4. Tomaszewski JE, Abraham S, Bell K, et al. The measurement of complexity in surgical pathology. Am J Clin Pathol. 1996;106(4 suppl 1):S65-S69.
5. PathFocus. 2004 User's Guide. Available at: http://www.cap.org/apps/docs/ path_focus/2004PathFocusUser Guide.pdf. Accessed June 24, 2004.
6. Anatomic pathology fee guideline. In: British Columbia Medical Association Guide to Fees. Vancouver, Canada: British Columbia Medical Association; 2002:AE43-AE47.
7. Alberta Health and Wellness. Anatomic Pathology Procedures: Common Laboratory Procedure List (Alberta). Edmonton, Canada: Alberta Health and Wellness; Revised March 15, 1996:4-12.
8. Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures. Published 1 July. 2003. page J34-35. Available at: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/ ohip/sob/physserv/J_diagth.pdf. Accessed May 20, 2003.
9. Kirschner CG, Jacobson CA, Reyes D, et al, eds. Surgical pathology, CPT 88300 to 88309 and Appendix A, modifiers 21 and 52. In: Current Procedural Terminology: (CPT) 1999, Standard Edition. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 1998:335-339, 387-388.
10. Tomaszewski JE, Bear HD, Connally JA, et al. Consensus conference on second opinions in diagnostic anatomic pathology: who, what, and when. Am J Clin Pathol. 2000;114:329-335.
11. Troxel DB, Sabella JD. Problem areas in pathology practice: uncovered by a review of malpractice claims. Am J Surg Pathol. 1994;18:821-831.
12. Titus K. No rights, no wrongs in second opinions. CAP Today. July 2001. Available at: http://www.cap.org/apps/docs/cap_today/cover_stories/cov_0701. html. Accessed September 24, 2004.
13. Renshaw AA, Pinnar NE, Jiroutek MR, et al. Quantifying the value of in-house consultation in surgical pathology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;117:751-754.
14. Kronz JD, Westra WH, Epstein JI. Mandatory second opinion surgical pathology at a large referral hospital. Cancer. 1999;86:2426-2435.
15. Abt AB, Abt LG, Olt GJ. The effect of interinstitution anatomic pathology consultation on patient care. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1995;119:514-517.
16. Lind AC, Bewtra C, Healy JC, et al. Prospective peer review in surgical pathology. Am J Clin Pathol. 1995;104:560-566.
17. Reason J. Human error: models and management. BMJ. 2000;320:768-770.
18. Leape LL, Berwick DM. Safe health care: are we up to it? BMJ. 2000;320:725-726.
19. Favaro A. Deadly diagnosis [transcript]. "W5" CTV Television, January 18, 2000.
20. Parham DM. The hidden increase in histopathologists' workload. J Clin Pathol. 1996;49:689-690.
21. Cross SS, Bull AD. Is the informational content of histopathological reports increasing? J Clin Pathol. 1992;45:179-180.
22. Lerwill M. Current practical application of diagnostic immunohistochemistry in breast pathology. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;127:1076-1091.
23. Sanderson SO, Sebo TJ, Murphy LM, et al. An analysis of the p63/α-methylacyl coenzyme A racemase immunohistochemical cocktail stain in prostate needle biopsy specimens and tissue microarrays. Am J Clin Pathol. 2004;121:220-225.
24. Haese A, Chaudhari M, Miller MC, et al. Quantitative biopsy pathology for the prediction of pathologically organ-confined prostate carcinoma: a multiinstitutional validation study. Cancer. 2003;97:969-978.
25. Harris GC, Denley HE, Finder SE, et al. Correlation of histologic prognostic factors in core biopsies and therapeutic excisions of invasive breast carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003;27:11-15.
26. Sharifi S, Peterson MK, Baum JK, et al. Assessment of pathologic prognostic factors in breast core needle biopsies. Mod Pathol. 1999;12:941-945.
27. Kempson RL. The time is now: checklists for surgical pathology reports [editorial]. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1992;116:1107-1108.
28. Rosai J, Bonfiglio TA, Corson JM, et al. Standardization of the surgical pathology report. Mod Pathol. 1992;5:197-199.
29. Required data elements from CAP cancer checklists, mandated for use by the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer, effective January 1, 2004. Available at: http://www.cap.org/apps/docs/cancer_protocols/ protocols_intro.html#1. Accessed September 24, 2004.
30. Suvarna SK, Kay MS. KU activity: a method for calculating histopathologists' workloads. J Clin Pathol. 1998;51:530-534.
31. Pargaonkar AS, Beissner RS, Snyder S, et al. Evaluation of immunohistochemistry and multiple-level sectioning in sentinel lymph nodes from patients with breast cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003;127:710-705.
32. Year 2002 Medicare Relative Values for Pathology Services. Available at: http://www.cap.org/apps/docs/medicare/beneficiary_notices/2002rvs.html. Accessed September 24, 2004.
33. Pathologists lean toward equal shares: production and "X, Y, Z" systems also used. Physician Compensation Report. August 23, 2000. Available at: http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FBW/is_13_1/ai_64777379. Accessed June 24, 2004.