Falling rates of perinatal postmortem examination: Are we to blame?

Archives of Disease in Childhood: Fetal and Neonatal Edition

Volumn 91, Issue 6, 2006, Pages

  Rose, C ^a   Evans, M ^b   Tooley, J ^a  

^a ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b NHS LOTHIAN   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUTOPSY; CLINICAL PRACTICE; HUMAN; LETTER; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; NEWBORN DEATH; PATHOLOGIST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW;

AUTOPSY; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; PERINATAL CARE; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION;

EID: 33750701811     PISSN: 13592998     EISSN: 14682052     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/adc.2005.091314     Document Type: Letter

References (4)

1. Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. The future of paediatric pathology services. London: RCPCH, 2002.
2. Khong TY, Mansor FAW, Staples AJ. Are perinatal autopsy rates satisfactory? Med J Aust 1995;162:469-70.
3. Saller DN Jr, Lesser KB, Harrel U, et al. The clinical utility of the perinatal autopsy. JAMA 1995;273:663-5.
4. McHaffie HE, Fowlie PW, Hume R, et al. Consent to autopsy for neonates. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2001;85:F4-7.