Measuring errors in surgical pathology in real-life practice: Defining what does and does not matter

American Journal of Clinical Pathology

Volumn 127, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 144-152

  Renshaw, Andrew A ^a   Gould, Edwin W ^a  

^a BAPTIST HOSPITAL OF MIAMI   (United States)

Author keywords

Anatomic; Blinded review; Errors; Pathology; Quality; Surgical pathology

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PRACTICE; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; MEDICAL ERROR; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; WORKLOAD; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; MEDICAL AUDIT; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY; STANDARD; STATISTICS;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CLINICAL COMPETENCE; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; HUMANS; MEDICAL AUDIT; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY, SURGICAL; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE;

EID: 34249097146     PISSN: 00029173     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1309/5KF89P63F4F6EUHB     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Renshaw AA, Lezon KM, Wilbur DC. The human false-negative rate of rescreening Pap tests: measured in a two-arm prospective clinical trial. Cancer. 2001;93:106-110.
2. Renshaw AA. Measuring sensitivity in gynecologic cytology: a review. Cancer. 2002;96:210-217.
3. Renshaw AA. Rescreening in cervical cytology for quality control: when bad data is worse than no data, or what works, what doesn't, and why. Clin Lab Med. 2003;23:695-708.
4. Renshaw AA. Experts in Wonderland: in search of the right test and the scientific method [editorial]. Diagn Cytopathol. 2000;23:297-298.
5. Raab SS, Grzybicki DM, Janosky JE, et al. Clinical impact and frequency of anatomic pathology errors in cancer diagnoses. Cancer. 2005;104:2205-2213.
6. Raab SS. Improving patient safety by examining pathology errors. Clin Lab Med. 2004;24:849-863.
7. Renshaw AA, Holladay EB, Geils KB. Results of multiple blinded review of Pap slides in the context of litigation: determining what can be regularly and reliably detected. Cancer. 2005;105:263-269.
8. Krieger P, Naryshkin S. Random rescreening of cytologic smears: a practical and effective component of quality assurance programs in both large and small cytology laboratories. Acta Cytol. 1994;38:291-298.
9. Bruner JM, Inouye L, Fuller GN, et al. Diagnostic discrepancies and their clinical impact in a neuropathology referral practice. Cancer. 1997;79:796-803.
10. Renshaw AA, Gould EW. Why there is a tendency to "overdiagnose" the follicular variant of papillary carcinoma of the thyroid. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;117:19-21.
11. Lloyd RV, Erickson LA, Casey MB, et al. Observer variation in the diagnosis of follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28:1336-1340.
12. Collins LC, Connolly JL, Page DL, et al. Diagnostic agreement in the evaluation of image-guided breast core needle biopsies: results from a randomized clinical trial. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28:126-131.
13. Renshaw AA, Pinnar NE, Jiroutek MR, et al. Blinded review as a method for quality improvement in surgical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002;126:961-963.
14. Weydert JA, De Young BR, Cohen MB. A preliminary diagnosis service provides prospective blinded dual-review of all general surgical pathology cases in an academic institution. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:801-805.
15. 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.
16. Renshaw AA, Cartagena N, Granter SR, et al. Agreement and error rates using blinded review to evaluate surgical pathology material. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;119:797-800.
17. Renshaw AA, Gould EW. Correlation of workload with disagreement and amendment rates in surgical pathology and nongynecologic cytology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;125:820-822.
18. Renshaw AA, Gould EW. Comparison of disagreement and amendment rates by tissue type and diagnosis: identifying cases for directed blinded review. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;126:736-739.
19. Kronz JD, Westra WH, Epstein JI. Mandatory second opinion surgical pathology at a large referral hospital. Cancer. 1999;86:2426-2438.
20. Weir MM, Jan E, Colgan TJ. Interinstitutional pathology consultations: a reassessment. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;120:405-412.
21. Raab SS, Nakhleh RE, Ruby SG. Patient safety in anatomic pathology: measuring discrepancy frequencies and causes. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129:459-466.
22. Trotter MJ, Bruecks AK. Interpretation of skin biopsies by general pathologists: diagnostic discrepancy rates measured by blinded review. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003;127:1489-1492.
23. Renshaw AA, Gould EW. Measuring the value of review of pathology material by a second pathologist. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;125:737-739.
24. Raab SS, Grzybicki DM. Anatomic pathology workload and error [editorial]. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;125:809-812.
25. Renshaw AA. Measuring and reporting errors in surgical pathology: lessons from gynecologic cytology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001;115:338-341.
26. Neal MH, Kline TS. Distraction index, part I: the elusive trich [editorial]. Diagn Cytopathol. 1999;21:367-369.
27. Schulte MA. Distraction index, part II: inflammation in nongynecologic cytology [editorial]. Diagn Cytopathol. 2000;23:149-150.
28. Valenstein PN, Raab SS, Walsh MK. Identification errors involving clinical laboratories: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of patient and specimen identification errors at 120 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130:1106-1113.
29. 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.
30. Renshaw AA, Gould EW. Comparison of disagreement and error rates for three types of interdepartmental consultations. Am J Clin Pathol. 2005;124:878-882.
31. Yobs AR, Plott AE, Hicklin MD, et al. Retrospective evaluation of gynecologic cytodiagnosis II: interlaboratory reproducibility as shown in rescreening large consecutive samples of reported cases. Acta Cytol. 1987;31:900-910.
32. Ramsay AD. Errors in histopathology reporting: detection and avoidance. Histopathology. 1999;34:481-490.