Challenges and opportunities in the adoption of College of American Pathologists checklists in electronic format: Perspectives and experience of reporting pathology protocols project (RPP2) Participant laboratories

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 134, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 1152-1159

  Hassell, Lewis A ^a   Parwani, Anil V ^b   Weiss, Lawrence ^c   Jones, Michael A ^d   Ye, Jay ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c CITY OF HOPE NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d MAINE MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^e EASTERN MAINE MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHECKLIST; FEMALE; HUMAN; LABORATORY; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD; MEDICAL SOCIETY; METHODOLOGY; PATHOLOGY; STANDARD; UNITED STATES;

CHECKLIST; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LABORATORIES; MALE; MEDICAL RECORDS; PATHOLOGY, SURGICAL; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 77955364567     PISSN: 00039985     EISSN: 15432165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Bostwick DG, Grignon DJ, Hammond ME, et al. Prognostic factors in prostate cancer: College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124(7):995-1000.
2. Dworak O. Synoptic surgical pathology reporting. Hum Pathol. 1992;23(8):85-86.
3. Hammond ME, Compton CC, for the Cancer Committee of the College of American Pathologists. Protocols for the examination of tumors of diverse sites: introduction. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124(1):13-16.
4. College of American Pathologists. Cancer protocols and checklists Web site. http://www.cap.org/apps/cap. portal?-nfpb5true&cntvwrPtlt- actionOverride5%2 Fportlets%2FcontentViewer%2Fshow&- windowLabel5cntvwrPtlt&cntvwrPtlt%7 BactionForm. contentReference%7D5committees%2Fcancer%2Fcancer-protocols %2Fprotocols-index. html&-state5maximized&-pageLabel5cntvwr. Accessed September 30, 2009.
5. Rosai J.; for The Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Standardized reporting of surgical pathology diagnoses for the major tumor types: a proposal. Am J Clin Pathol. 1993;100(3):240-255.
6. College of American Pathologists. About CAP electronic cancer checklists (CAP eCC) Web site. http://www.cap.org/apps/cap. portal?- nfpb5true&cntvwrPtlt-actionOverride5%2Fportlets%2FcontentViewer%2Fshow&- window Label5cntvwrPtlt&cntvwrPtlt%7BactionForm.contentReference%7D5snomed% 2Fabout-ecc.html&-state5maximized&-pageLabel5cntvwr. Accessed October 5, 2009.
7. Centers for Disease Control, National Program on Cancer Registries. Reporting pathology protocols Web site. http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/npcr/infor- matics/rpp/. Accessed September 30, 2009.
8. Nochomovitz LE. Application of synoptic reports. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1998;122(6):493-494.
9. Van Berkum MM. SNOMED CT encoded Cancer Protocols. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2003;1039.
10. Hassell LA, Aldinger W, Moody C, et al. Electronic capture and communication of synoptic cancer data elements from pathology reports: results of the Reporting Pathology Protocols 2 (RPP2) project. J Registry Mgmt. In press.
11. Parwani A, Jones M, Hassell LA et al. Reporting pathology protocols for cancers of the breast, prostate, and melanomas (RPP2): utility of computer database capture, encoding and transmission of synoptic data elements. Cancer Inform. In press.
12. RPP2 Project Team Members. Report on the Reporting Pathology Protocols for Cancers of the Breast and Prostate, and Melanomas. Atlanta, GA: the Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion; 2009.
13. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Standard-ization of the surgical pathology report. Am J Surg Pathol. 1992;16(1):84-86.
14. Commission on Cancer, American College of Surgeons. Cancer program and data standards: cancer program standards 2009 revised edition. http://www.facs.org/cancer/coc/standards.html. Accessed May 29, 2009.
15. Cerner Corporation. Cerner launches Cerner Millennium PathNet synoptic reporting [press release]. Available at: http://www.cerner.com/public/News- Releases.asp?id5257&cid5229. Accessed May 29, 2009.
16. Murdock E.; for IMPAC Medical Systems, Inc. Impac Software introduces PowerPath version 9.0 [press release]. Available at: http://www.impac.com/ company/pressroom/ind-prs/lpr58060209.html. Accessed May 29, 2009.
17. 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.
18. Rigby K, Brown SR, Lakin G, et al. The use of a proforma improves colorectal cancer pathology reporting. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1999;81(6):401-403.
19. Yunker WK, Matthews W, Dort JC. Making the most of your pathology: standardized histopathology reporting in head and neck cancer. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008;37(1):48-55.
20. Karim RZ, van den Berg KS, Colman MH, et al. The advantage of using a synoptic pathology report format for cutaneous melanoma. Histopathology. 2008;52(2):130-138.