Adequacy of surgical pathology reporting of cancer: A college of American pathologists q-probes study of 86 institutions

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 134, Issue 7, 2010, Pages 969-974

  Idowu, Michael O ^a   Bekeris, Leonas G ^b   Raab, Stephen ^c   Ruby, Stephen G ^d   Nakhleh, Raouf E ^e  

^a VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Phoenixville Hospital   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^d 4path Ltd   (United States)

^e MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHECKLIST; EVALUATION; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; MEDICAL RECORD; MEDICAL SOCIETY; METHODOLOGY; NEOPLASM; PATHOLOGY; STANDARD; UNITED STATES;

CHECKLIST; HUMANS; MEDICAL RECORDS; NEOPLASMS; PATHOLOGY, SURGICAL; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 77954323220     PISSN: 00039985     EISSN: 15432165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Kempson RL. The time is now: checklist for surgical pathology reports. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1992;116(11):1107-1108.
2. Zarbo RJ. Interinstitutional assessment of colorectal carcinoma surgical pathology adequacy: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of practice patterns from 532 laboratories and 15, 940 reports. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1992;116(11):1113-1119.
3. Gephardt GN, Baker PB. Lung carcinoma surgical pathology report adequacy: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of over 8300 cases from 464 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996;120(10):922-927.
4. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Standardization of the surgical pathology report. Am J Surg Pathol. 1992;16(1):84-86.
5. Rosai J. Standardized reporting of surgical pathology diagnoses for the major tumor types. Am J Clin Pathol. 1993;100(3):240-255.
6. Leslie KO, Rosai J. Standardization of the surgical pathology report: formats, templates and synoptic reports. Semin Diagn Pathol. 1994;11(4):253-257.
7. Ruby SG, Henson DE. Practice protocols for surgical pathology: a communication from the Cancer Committee of the College of American Pathologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1994;118(2):120-121.
8. Fielding LP, Henson DE. Multiple prognostic factors and outcome analysis in patients with cancer: communication from the American Joint Committee on Cancer. Cancer. 1993;71(7):2426-2429.
9. Kempson RL. Checklists for surgical pathology reports: an important step forward [editorial]. Am J Clin Pathol. 1993:100 (3):196-197.
10. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Recommendations for the reporting of breast carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol. 1995;104(6):614-619.
11. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Recommendations for the reporting of urinary bladder specimens containing bladder neoplasms. Hum Pathol. 1996;27(8):751-753.
12. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Recommendations for the reporting of resected large intestinal carcinomas. Hum Pathol. 1996;27(1):5-8.
13. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Recommendations for the reporting of larynx specimens containing laryngeal neoplasms. Virchows Arch. 1997;431(3):155-157.
14. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Recommendations for the reporting of tissues removed as part of the surgical treatment of cutaneous melanoma. Virchow Arch. 1997;431(2):79-81.
15. Powsner SM, Costa J, Homer RJ. Clinicians are from Mars and pathologists are from Venus: clinician interpretation of pathology reports. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124(7):1040-1046.
16. Standard 4.6. American College of Surgeon Web site. http://www.facs.org/ cancer/coc/pdf/2009-changes-standard-46pdf. Revised September 2008. Accessed April 17, 2009.
17. Cancer of American Pathologists condensed protocols. American College of Surgeon Web site. http://www.facs.org/cancer/coc/capprotocoldocpdf. Updated July 2005. Accessed April 17, 2009.
18. Cancer protocols and checklists. College of American Pathologists Web site. http://www.cap.org/apps/cap. portal?-nfpb5true&cntvwrPtlt- actionOverride5 %2Fportlets%2FcontentViewer%2Fshow&- windowLabel5cntvwrPtlt&cntvwrPtlt% 7BactionForm. contentReference%7D5committees%2Fcancer%2Fcancer-protocols% 2Fprotocols-index. html&-state5maximized&-pageLabel5cntvwr. Accessed May 13, 2009.
19. Paxton A. Thaw begins, changes to LAP checklists flow. CAP Today. 2009;23(6):5-8.
20. Bachner P, Howanitz P. Using Q-Probes to improve the quality of laboratory medicine: a quality improvement program of the College of American Pathologists. Qual Assur Health Care. 1991;3(3):167-177.
21. Lester SC, Connolly JL, Amin MB. College of American Pathologists protocol for reporting of ductal carcinoma in situ. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133(1):13-15.
22. Valenstein PN. Formatting pathology reports: applying four design principles to improve communication and patient safety. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132(1):84-94.
23. Dayton AS, Ro JY, Schwartz MR, et al. Raymond's paragraph system: an alternative format for the organization of gross pathology reports and its implementation in an academic teaching hospital. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133(2):298-302.
24. Nakhleh RE, Jones B, Zarbo RJ. Mammographically directed breast biopsies: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of clinician expectations and of specimen handling and reporting in 434 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1997;121(1):11-18.
25. Sahoo S, Lester SC. Pathology of breast carcinomas after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: an overview with recommendations on specimen processing and reporting. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133(4):633-642.
26. Srigley JR, McGowan T, Maclean A, et al. Standardized synoptic cancer pathology reporting: a population-based approach. J Surg Oncol. 2009;99(8):517-524.
27. Rex DK, Alikhan M, Cummings O, et al. Accuracy of pathologic interpretation of colorectal polyps by general pathologists in community practice. Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;50(4):468-474. (Pubitemid 29480771)
28. Onerheim R, Racette P, Jacques A, Gagnon R. Improving the quality of surgical pathology reports for breast cancer: a centralized audit with feedback. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132(9):1428-1431.
29. Imperato PJ, Waisman J, Wallen M, et al. The use of quality indicators for assessing radical prostatectomy specimens. Am J Med Qual. 2000;15(5):212-220.
30. Imperato PJ, Waisman J, Wallen MD, et al. Improvements in breast cancer pathology practices among medicare patients undergoing unilateral extended simple mastectomy. Am J Med Qual. 2003;18(4):164-170.
31. Imperato PJ, Waisman J, Wallen M, et al. Results of a cooperative educational program to improve prostate pathology reports among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. J Community Health. 2002;27(1):1-13.
32. Federal Register. Washington, DC: Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration; 2008:69817. vol 73; no 224.
33. Physician quality reporting initiative. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Web site. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/pqri/. Accessed March 15, 2009.
34. Elston DM. The physician quality reporting initiative. Clin Lab Med. 2008;28(2):351-357.