Effectiveness of random and focused review in detecting surgical pathology error

American Journal of Clinical Pathology

Volumn 130, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 905-912

  Raab, Stephen S ^a   Grzybicki, Dana M ^a   Mahood, Laura K ^b   Parwani, Anil V ^c   Kuan, Shih Fan ^c   Rao, Uma N ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b Pittsburgh Regional Healthcare Initiative   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Detection methods; Medical error; Quality assurance; Surgical pathology

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; MEDICAL RECORD; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PATHOLOGIST; PATIENT CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; SURGICAL ERROR;

DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; GASTROENTEROLOGY; HUMANS; MEDICAL AUDIT; MEDICAL ERRORS; PATHOLOGY, SURGICAL; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; RANDOM ALLOCATION;

EID: 58049206872     PISSN: 00029173     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1309/AJCPPIA5D7MYKDWF     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Zarbo RJ, Meier FA, Raab SS. Error detection in anatomic pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129:1237-1245.
2. Raab SS, Nakhleh RE, Ruby SG. Patient safety in anatomic pathology: measuring discrepancy frequency and causes. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129:459-466.
3. Novis D. Routine review of surgical pathology cases as a method by which to reduce diagnostic errors in a community hospital. Pathol Case Rev. 2005;10:63-67.
4. Raab SS, Stone CH, Jensen CS, et al. Double slide viewing as a cytology quality improvement initiative. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;125:526-533.
5. Ramsay AD, Gallagher PJ. Local audit of surgical pathology: 18 months' experience of peer-review-based quality assurance in an English teaching hospital. Am J Surg Pathol. 1992;16:476-482.
6. Zardawi IM, Bennet G, Jain S, et al. Internal quality assurance activities of a surgical pathology department in an Australian teaching hospital. J Clin Pathol. 1998;51:696-699.
7. Safrin RE, Bark CJ. Surgical pathology signout: routine review of every case by a second pathologist. Am J Surg Pathol. 1993;17:1190-1192.
8. 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.
9. Renshaw AA, Gould EW. Measuring the value of review of pathology material by a second pathologist. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;125:820-822.
10. Renshaw AA, Gould EW. Comparison of disagreement and error rates for three types of interdepartmental consultations. Am J Clin Pathol. 2005;124:878-882.
11. Raab SS, Grzybicki DM, Janosky JE, et al. Clinical impact and frequency of anatomic pathology errors in cancer diagnosis. Cancer. 2005;104:2205-2213.
12. Ursprung R, Gray JE, Edwards WH, et al. Real time patient safety audits: improving safety every day. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005;14:284-289.
13. Piotrowski MM, Hinshaw DB. The safety checklist program: creating a culture of safety in intensive care units. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2002;28:306-315.
14. Odwanzy R, Hasler S, Abrams R, et al. Organizational and cultural changes for providing safe patient care. Qual Manage Health Care. 2005;14:132-143.
15. Vohra PD, Johnson JK, Dougherty CK, et al. Housestaff and medical student attitudes toward medical errors and adverse events. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2007;33:493-501.
16. Black-Schaffer WS, Young RH, Harris NL. Subspecialization of surgical pathology at the Massachusetts General Hospital. Am J Clin Pathol. 1996;106(4 suppl 1):S33-S42.
17. White VA, Trotter MJ. Intraoperative consultation/final diagnosis correlation: relationship to tissue type and pathologic process. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132:29-36.
18. Strom BL. Methodologic challenges to studying patient safety and comparative effectiveness. Med Care. 2007;45(10 suppl 2):S13-S15.
19. Meade MO, Richardson WS. Selecting and appraising studies for a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:531-537.
20. Carroll JS, Rudolph JW, Hatakenaka S. Lessons learned from non-medical industries: root cause analysis as culture change at a chemical plant. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;11:266-269.
21. Hudson P. Applying the lessons of high risk industries to health care. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12:7-12.
22. Roberts KH, Tadmor CT. Lessons learned from non-medical industries: the tragedy of the USS Greeneville. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;11:355-357.
23. Llewellyn H. Observer variation, dysplasia grading, and HPV typing: a review. Am J Clin Pathol. 2000;114(suppl):S21-S35.
24. Page DL, Dupont WD, Jensen RA, et al. When and to what end do pathologists agree [editorial]? J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:88-89.
25. Leslie KO, Fechner RE, Kempson RL. Second opinions in surgical pathology. Am J Clin Pathol. 1996;106(4 suppl 1):S58-S64.
26. Scott MA, Lagios MD, Axelsson K, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: reproducibility of histological subtype analysis. Hum Pathol. 1997;28:967-973.
27. Wells WA, Carney PA, Eliassen MS, et al. Pathologists' agreement with experts and reproducibility of breast ductal carcinoma-in-situ classification schemes. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000;24:651-659.
28. Bethwaite P, Smith N, Delahung B, et al. Reproducibility of new classification schemes for the pathology of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Clin Pathol. 1998;51:450-454.
29. Sloane JP, Amendoeira I, Apostolikas N, et al. Consistency achieved by 23 European pathologists in categorizing ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using five classifications. European Commission Working Group on Breast Screening Pathology. Hum Pathol. 1998;29:1056-1062.
30. Frable WJ. Surgical pathology: second reviews, institutional reviews, audits, and correlations: what's out there? error or diagnostic variation. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130:620-625.