A preliminary diagnosis service provides prospective blinded dual-review of all general surgical pathology cases in an academic practice

American Journal of Surgical Pathology

Volumn 29, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 801-805

  Weydert, Jamie A ^a,b   De Young, Barry R ^a   Cohen, Michael B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IOWA HOSPITALS AND CLINICS   (United States)

Author keywords

Concordance; Dual review; Quality assurance

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PRACTICE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; HUMAN TISSUE; PATHOLOGICAL ANATOMY; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; RESIDENCY EDUCATION; REVIEW; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE;

ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTERS; HUMANS; IOWA; MEDICAL AUDIT; PATHOLOGY DEPARTMENT, HOSPITAL; PATHOLOGY, SURGICAL; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE;

EID: 19544380246     PISSN: 01475185     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.pas.0000156102.30133.2b     Document Type: Review

References (12)

1. ACGME Common Program Requirements. D.4 Interpersonal and Communication Skills [ACGME web site]. Available at: www.acgme.org. Accessed July 12, 2004.
2. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Sanfilippo F. Clinical and cost impact of second-opinion pathology: review of prostate biopsies prior to radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol. 1996;20:851-857.
3. Hahm GK, Niemann TH, Lucas JG, et al. The value of second opinion in gastrointestinal and liver pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2001;125: 736-739.
4. Kronz JD, Westra WH, Epstein JI. Mandatory second opinion surgical pathology at a large referral hospital. Cancer. 1999;86:2426-2435.
5. Lind AC, Bewtra C, Healy JC, et al. Prospective peer review in surgical pathology. Am J Clin Pathol. 1995;104:560-566.
6. Renshaw AA, Cartagena N, Granter SR, et al. Agreement and error rates using blinded review to evaluate surgical pathology of biopsy material. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;119:797-800.
7. Renshaw AA, Pinnar NE, Jirtourek MR, et al. Blinded review as a method for quality improvement in surgical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002;126:961-963.
8. 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.
9. Renshaw AA, Young ML, Jiroutek MR. How many cases need to be reviewed to compare performance in surgical pathology? Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;119:388-391.
10. Safrin RE, Bark CJ. Surgical pathology signout: routine review of every case by a second pathologist. Am J Surg Pathol. 1993;17:1190-1192.
11. Trotter MJ, Bruecks AK. Interpretation of skin biopsies by general pathologists: diagnostic discrepancy rate measured by blinded review. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003;127:1489-1492.
12. Whitehead ME, Fitzwater JE, Lindley SK, et al. Quality assurance of histopathologic diagnoses: a prospective audit of three thousand cases. Am J Clin Pathol. 1984;81:487-491.