Detection and classification of diagnostic discrepancies (Errors) in surgical pathology

Advances in Anatomic Pathology

Volumn 17, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 359-365

  Roy, Jennifer E ^a   Hunt, Jennifer L ^a  

^a MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Amended reports; Diagnostic discrepancy; Error

Indexed keywords

CLASSIFICATION; CONSULTATION; CORRELATIONAL STUDY; CYTOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HISTOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; SURGICAL INJURY;

DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; HUMANS; LABORATORIES; MEDICAL RECORDS; PATHOLOGY, SURGICAL; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; QUALITY IMPROVEMENT;

EID: 78549267801     PISSN: 10724109     EISSN: 15334031     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/PAP.0b013e3181ece0db     Document Type: Review

References (54)

1. Leong AS, Braye S, Bhagwandeen B. Diagnostic "errors" in anatomical pathology: relevance to Australian laboratories. Pathology. 2006;38:490-497.
2. Raab SS. Improving patient safety by examining pathology errors. Clin Lab Med. 2004;24:849-863.
3. Sirota RL. Defining error in anatomic pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130:604-606.
4. Foucar E. Error identification: a surgical pathology dilemma. Am J Surg Pathol. 1998;22:1-5.
5. Coffin CS, Burak KW, Hart J, et al. The impact of pathologist experience on liver transplant biopsy interpretation. Mod Pathol. 2006;19:832-838.
6. Hilborne LH. Examining amended reports in surgical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1998;122:301-302.
7. Renshaw AA. Comparing methods to measure error in gynecologic cytology and surgical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130:626-629.
8. Foucar E. Classification of error in anatomic pathology: a proposal for an evidence-based standard. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2005;22:139-146.
9. Renshaw AA, Cartagena N, Granter SR, et al. Agreement and error rates using blinded review to evaluate surgical pathology of biopsy material. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;119: 797-800.
10. Lind AC, Bewtra C, Healy JC, et al. Prospective peer review in surgical pathology. Am J Clin Pathol. 1995;104:560-566.
11. Raab SS, Nakhleh RE, Ruby SG. Patient safety in anatomic pathology: measuring discrepancy frequencies and causes. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129:459-466.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Safrin RE, Bark CJ. Surgical pathology sign-out. Routine review ofevery case by a second pathologist. Am J Surg Pathol. 1993;17:1190-1192.
15. Nakhleh RE, Zarbo RJ. Amended reports in surgical pathology and implications for diagnostic error detection and avoidance: a College of American Pathologists Q-probes study of 1,667,547 accessioned cases in 359 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1998;122:303-309.
16. Raab SS, Grzybicki DM, Mahood LK, et al. Effectiveness of random and focused review in detecting surgical pathology error. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008;130:905-912.
17. Ramsay AD. Errors in histopathology reporting: detection and avoidance. Histopathology. 1999;34:481-490.
18. Troxel DB. Diagnostic errors in surgical pathology uncovered by a review of malpractice claims: part I. General considerations. Int J Surg Pathol. 2000;8:161-163.
19. Troxel DB. Diagnostic pitfalls in surgical pathology - discovered by a review of malpractice claims: part VII. Random errors. Int J Surg Pathol. 2001;9:305-308.
20. Troxel DB. Pitfalls in the diagnosis of malignant melanoma: findings of a risk management panel study. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003;27:1278-1283.
21. Troxel DB. Error in surgical pathology. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28:1092-1095.
22. Troxel DB. An insurer's perspective on error and loss in pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129:1234-1236.
23. Kornstein MJ, Byrne SP. The medicolegal aspect of error in pathology: a search of jury verdicts and settlements. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131:615-618.
24. 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 practice. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:801-805.
25. Zarbo RJ, Meier FA, Raab SS. Error detection in anatomic pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129:1237-1245.
26. Wakely SL, Baxendine-Jones JA, Gallagher PJ, et al. Aberrant diagnoses by individual surgical pathologists. Am J Surg Pathol. 1998;22:77-82.
27. Raab SS, Tworek JA, Souers R, et al. The value of monitoring frozen section-permanent section correlation data over time. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130:337-342.
28. Plesec TP, Prayson RA. Frozen section discrepancy in the evaluation of central nervous system tumors. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131:1532-1540.
29. Basolo F, Ugolini C, Proietti A, et al. Role of frozen section associated with intraoperative cytology in comparison to FNA and FS alone in the management of thyroid nodules. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007;33:769-775.
30. Olson S, Cheema Y, Harter J, et al. Does frozen section alter surgical management of multinodular thyroid disease? J Surg Res. 2006;136:179-181.
31. LiVolsi VA, Baloch ZW. Use and abuse of frozen section in the diagnosis of follicular thyroid lesions. Endocr Pathol. 2005; 16:285-293.
32. Horvath JW, Barnett GE, Jimenez RE, et al. Comparison of intraoperative frozen section analysis for sentinel lymph node biopsy during breast cancer surgery for invasive lobular carcinoma and invasive ductal carcinoma. World J Surg Oncol. 2009;7:34.
33. Zarbo RJ, Hoffman GG, Howanitz PJ. Interinstitutional comparison of frozen-section consultation. A College of American Pathologists Q-Probe study of 79,647 consultations in 297 North American institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1991;115:1187-1194.
34. White VA, Trotter MJ. Intraoperative consultation/final diagnosis correlation: relationship to tissue type and pathologic process. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132:29-36.
35. Gephardt GN, Zarbo RJ. Interinstitutional comparison of frozen section consultations. A college of American Patho logists Q-Probes study of 90,538 cases in 461 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996;120:804-809.
36. Novis DA, Gephardt GN, Zarbo RJ. Interinstitutional 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;120:1087-1093.
37. Goldsmith JD, Siegal GP, Suster S, et al. Reporting guidelines for clinical laboratory reports in surgical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132:1608-1616.
38. Pereira TC, Silverman JF, LiVolsi V, et al. A multi-institutional survey of critical diagnoses (critical values) in surgical pathology and cytology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008;130: 731-735.
39. Gupta D, Layfield LJ. Prevalence of inter-institutional anatomic pathology slide review: a survey of current practice. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000;24:280-284.
40. Consultations in Surgical Pathology. Association of directors of anatomic and surgical pathology. Am J Surg Pathol. 1993; 17:743-745.
41. Azam M, Nakhleh RE. Surgical pathology extradepartmental consultation practices. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002;126: 405-412.
42. van Dijk MC, Aben KK, van Hees F, et al. Expert review remains important in the histopathological diagnosis of cutaneous melanocytic lesions. Histopathology. 2008;52:139-146.
43. Lehnhardt M, Daigeler A, Hauser J, et al. The value of expert second opinion in diagnosis of soft tissue sarcomas. J Surg Oncol. 2008;97:40-43.
44. Nguyen PL, Schultz D, Renshaw AA, et al. The impact of pathology review on treatment recommendations for patients with adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Urol Oncol.2004;22:295-299.
45. Bejarano PA, Koehler A, Sherman KE. Second opinion pathology in liver biopsy interpretation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96:3158-3164.
46. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Sanfilippo F. Clinical and cost impact of second-opinion pathology. Review of prostate biopsies prior to radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol. 1996;20:851-857.
47. Jacques SM, Qureshi F, Munkarah A, et al. Interinstitutional surgical pathology review in gynecologic oncology: II. Endometrial cancer in hysterectomy specimens. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1998;17:42-45. (Pubitemid 28016701)
48. Jacques SM, Qureshi F, Munkarah A, et al. Interinstitutional surgical pathology review in gynecologic oncology: I. Cancer in endometrial curettings and biopsies. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1998;17:36-41. (Pubitemid 28016700)
49. Manion E, Cohen MB, Weydert J. Mandatory second opinion in surgical pathology referral material: clinical consequences of major disagreements. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32:732-737.
50. Abt AB, Abt LG, Olt GJ. The effect of interinstitution anatomic pathology consultation on patient care. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1995;119:514-517.
51. Kronz JD, Westra WH, Epstein JI. Mandatory second opinion surgical pathology at a large referral hospital. Cancer. 1999;86:2426-2435.
52. Weir MM, Jan E, Colgan TJ. Interinstitutional pathology consultations. A reassessment. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;120: 405-412.
53. Tsung JS. Institutional pathology consultation. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28:399-402.
54. Stastny JF, Geisinger KR, Michael CW, et al. Another quality assurance issue - amended reports: what do we really know about them? Diagn Cytopathol. 1998;18:67-70.