Diagnostic 'errors' in anatomical pathology: Relevance to Australian laboratories

Pathology

Volumn 38, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 490-497

  Leong, Anthony S Y ^a   Braye, Stephen ^a   Bhagwandeen, Brahm ^a  

^a JOHN HUNTER HOSPITAL   (Australia)

Author keywords

Anatomical pathology; Clinical governance; Cytology; Diagnostic errors; Frozen section; Immunohistochemistry

Indexed keywords

AUSTRALIA; CYTOLOGY; CYTOPATHOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; HISTOPATHOLOGY; LABORATORY TEST; MORPHOLOGY; PATHOLOGIST; PATHOLOGY; PATIENT CARE; PROSTATE CARCINOMA; REVIEW; SPINDLE CELL CARCINOMA; SYNOVIAL SARCOMA; CLASSIFICATION; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HOSPITAL DEPARTMENT; HOSPITAL LABORATORY; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; QUALITY CONTROL; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARD;

AUSTRALIA; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; HUMANS; LABORATORIES, HOSPITAL; PATHOLOGY; PATHOLOGY DEPARTMENT, HOSPITAL; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; QUALITY CONTROL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 34247141497     PISSN: 00313025     EISSN: 14653931     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00313020601032477     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Frable WJ. Surgical pathology - second reviews, institutional reviews, audits, and correlations. What's out there? Error or diagnostic variation. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006; 130: 620-5.
2. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, editors. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1999.
3. Kronz JD, Westra WH, Epstein JI. Mandatory second opinion surgical pathology at a large referral hospital. Cancer 1999; 86: 2426-35.
4. Epstein J. Jonathan Epstein MD responds to comments on the ABC World News Tonight story on second opinions. CAP Today 2001; May 20.
5. Lesna M. Assessing diagnostic errors: when is suspension of a pathologist justified? J Clin Pathol 1998; 51: 649-51.
6. Nakhleh RE, Zarbo RJ. Amended reports in surgical pathology and implications for diagnostic error detection and avoidance: a College of American Pathologists Q-probe study of 1,667,547 accessioned cases in 359 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1998; 122: 303-9.
7. Foucar E. Error in anatomical pathology. Am J Clin Pathol 2001; 116 (Suppl): S34-46.
8. Zarbo RJ, Meier FA, Raab SS. Error detection in anatomical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2005; 129: 1237-45.
9. Raab SS, Nakhleh RE, Ruby SG. Patient safety in anatomical pathology. Measuring discrepancy frequencies and causes. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2005; 129: 459-66.
10. Raab SS. Improving patient safety by examining pathology errors. Clin Lab Med 2004; 24: 849-63.
11. Delbridge A, Bernard JRL, editors. The Macquarie Concise Dictionary. 2nd ed. Sydney: The Macquarie Library Pty Ltd, 1988.
12. Leong AS-Y, James CL, Thomas AC. Handbook of Surgical Pathology. London: Churchill Livingstone, 1966; 240-1.
13. Presant CA, Russell WO, Alexander RW, Fu YS. Soft-tissue and bone sarcoma histopathology peer review: the frequency of disagreement in diagnosis and the need for second pathology opinions. The Southeastern Cancer Study Group experience. J Clin Oncol 1986; 4: 1658-61.
14. Kronz JD, Westra WH. The role of second opinion pathology in the management of lesions of the head and neck. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005; 13: 81-4.
15. Raab SS, Grzybicki DM, Janosky JE, et al. Clinical impact and frequency of anatomical pathology errors in cancer diagnoses. Cancer 2005; 104: 2205-13.
16. Coffin CM. Pediatric surgical pathology. Pitfalls and strategies for error prevention. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006; 130: 610-2.
17. Rosai J. Borderline epithelial lesions of the breast. Am J Surg Pathol 1991; 15: 209-21.
18. Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL, Tavassoli FA, et al. Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of ductal proliferative lesions using standardised criteria. Am J Surg Pathol 1992; 15: 1133-43.
19. Royal College of Pathologists. Standards and datasets for reporting cancers. http://www.rcpath.org/index.asp?PageID=254 (accessed Sept 2006).
20. Compton CC, Henson DE, Hammond EH, Schramm JB, editors. Reporting on Cancer Speimens: Protocols and Case Summaries. Northfield, IL: College of American Pathologists, 1998.
21. Association of Directors of Anatomical and Surgical Pathology. Checklists and guidelines for surgical pathology reports of malignant neoplasms. http://www.adasp.org/Checklists/checklists.htm (accessed Sept 2006).
22. Leong AS-Y. Synoptic/checklist reporting of breast biopsies: Has the time come? Breast J 2001; 7: 271-4.
23. Lind AC, Bewtra C, Healy JC, et al. Prospective peer review in surgical pathology. Am J Surg Pathol 1995; 104: 560-6.
24. Furness PN, Lauder I. A questionnaire-based survey of errors in diagnostic histopathology throughout the United Kingdom. J Clin Pathol 1997; 50: 457-60.
25. Zardawi IM, Bennett G, Jain S, Brown M. Internal quality assurance activities of a surgical pathology department in an Australian teaching hospital. J Clin Pathol 1998; 5: 695-9.
26. Ormsby AH, Raju U, Lee M, et al. Pathology panel review of breast lesions: a quality assurance assessment (abstract). Mod Pathol 2005; 18: 324A.
27. Jones BA, Novis DA. Cervical biopsy-cytology correlation. A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 22439 correlations in 348 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1996; 120: 523-31.
28. Zarbo RJ. Monitoring anatomic pathology practice through quality assurance measures. Clin Lab Med 1999; 19: 713-42.
29. Raab SS, Jones BA. Q-TRACKS: Gynecologic cytologic-histologic correlation: 2003 Annual Summary. Northfield, IL: College of American Pathologists, 2003.
30. Clary KM, Silverman JF, Liu Y, et al. Cytohistologic discrepancies: a means to improve pathology practice and patient outcomes. Am J Clin Pathol 2002; 117: 567-73.
31. De Mey RM. To err is human - to sue. Diagn Cytopathol 1996; 15: iii-vi.
32. Association of Directors of Anatomical and Surgical Pathology. Recommendations on quality control and quality assurance in anatomic pathology. Am J Surg Pathol 1991; 15: 1007-9.
33. Novis DA, Gephardt GN, Zarbo RJ. Inter-institutional comparison of frozen section consultation in small hospitals: a College of American Pathologists Q-probes study of 18,532 frozen section consultation diagnoses in 233 small hospitals. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1996; 120: 1087-93.
34. Renshaw AA, Gould EW. Comparison of disagreement and error rates for three types of interdepartmental consultations. Am J Clin Pathol 2005; 124: 878-82.
35. Abt AB, Abt LG, Olt GJ. The effect of inter-institution anatomical pathology consultation on patient care. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1995; 119: 514-7.
36. Bejarano PA, Koehler A, Sherman KE. Second opinion pathology in liver biopsy interpretation. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96: 3158-64.
37. Bruner JM, Inouye L, Fuller GN, Langford LA. Diagnostic discrepancies and their clinical impact in a neuropathology referral practice. Cancer 1997; 79: 796-803.
38. Mellink WA, Henzen-Logmans SC, Bongaerts AH, et al. Discrepancy between second and first opinion in surgical oncology patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 2006; 32: 108-12.
39. Coblentx TR, Mills SE, Theodorescu D. Impact of second opinion pathology in the definitive management of patients with bladder carcinoma. Cancer 2001; 91: 1284-90.
40. Selman AE, Niemann TH, Fowler JM, Copeland IJ. Quality assurance of second opinion pathology in gynaecologic oncology. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 94: 302-6.
41. Stardub YL, Messenger KA, Hao N, et al. Changes in breast cancer therapy because of pathology second opinions. Am Surg Oncol 2002; 9: 982-7.
42. Crook M. Clinical governance and pathology. J Clin Pathol 2002; 55: 177-9.
43. Tsung JS. Institutional pathology consultation. Am J Surg Pathol 2004; 28: 399-402.
44. Wetherington RW, Cooper HS, Al-Saleem T, et al. Clinical significance of performing immunohistochemistry on cases with a previous diagnosis of cancer coming to a national comprehensive cancer center for treatment or second opinion. Am J Surg Pathol 2002; 26: 1222-30.
45. Tomaszewski JE, LiVolsi VA. Editorial. Mandatory second opinion of pathologic studies. Is it necessary? Cancer 1999; 86: 2198-200.
46. Murphy WM, Rivera-Ramirez I, Luciani LG, Wajsman X. Second opinion of anatomical pathology: a complex issue not easily reduced to matters of right and wrong. J Urol 2001; 165: 1957-9.
47. Troxel DB. Medicolegal aspects of error in pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006; 130: 617-9.
48. Renshaw AA, Cartagena N, Granter SR, Gould EW. Agreement and error rates using blinded review to evaluate surgical pathology of biopsy material. Am J Clin Pathol 2003; 119: 797-800.
49. 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: 388-91.
50. Royal College of Pathologists. Medical and Scientific Staffing of National Health Service Pathology Departments. London: Royal College of Pathologists, 1999.
51. Safrin RE, Bark CJ. Surgical pathology signout: routine review of every case by a second pathologist. Am J Surg Pathol 1993; 17: 1190-2.