Quality in surgical pathology communication and reporting

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 135, Issue 11, 2011, Pages 1394-1397

  Nakhleh, Raouf E ^a  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; PATHOLOGY; PATIENT REFERRAL; STANDARD;

HUMANS; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; PATHOLOGY, SURGICAL; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION;

EID: 82555194533     PISSN: 00039985     EISSN: 15432165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2011-0192-RA     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Nakhleh RE. What is quality in surgical pathology. J Clin Pathol. 2006; 59(7): 669-672.
2. Lingard L, Espin S, Whyte S, et al. Communication failures in the operating room: an observational classification of recurrent types and effects. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004; 13(5): 330-334. (Pubitemid 39389393)
3. Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, et al. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients: results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med. 1991; 324(6): 370-376.
4. Kornstein MJ, Byme SP. The medicolegal aspect of error in pathology: a search of jury verdicts and settlements. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007; 131(4): 615-618. (Pubitemid 46564437)
5. Troxel DB. Medicolegal aspects of error in pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007; 130(5): 617-619. (Pubitemid 43736860)
6. Nakhleh RE, Souers R, Ruby SG. Physician satisfaction with surgical pathology reports: a 2-year College of American Pathologists Q-Tracks study. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008; 132(11): 1719-1722.
7. Zarbo RJ, Nakhleh RE, Walsh M; Quality Practices Committee, College of American Pathologists. Customer satisfaction in anatomic pathology: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 3065 physician surveys from 94 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003; 127(1): 23-29. (Pubitemid 36236575)
8. Goldsmith JD, Siegal GP, Suster S, Wheeler TM, Brown RW. Reporting guidelines for clinical laboratory reports in surgical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008; 132(10): 1608-1616.
9. College of American Pathologists' cancer protocols and checklists. CAP 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 College ofAmerican Pathologists, Northfield, IL. Accessed April 4, 2011.
10. Branston LK, Greening S, Newcombe RG, et al. The implementation of guidelines and computerized forms improves the completeness of cancer pathology reporting: the CROPS project, a randomized controlled trial in pathology. Eur J Cancer. 2002; 38(6): 764-772. (Pubitemid 34280320)
11. Idowu MO, Bekeris LG, Raab S, Ruby SG, Nakhleh RE. Adequacy of surgical pathology reporting of cancer: a College of American Pathologists QProbes study of 86 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010; 134(7): 969-974.
12. 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.
13. 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. (Pubitemid 26346455)
14. Rosai J. Borderline epithelial lesions of the breast. Am J Surg Pathol. 1991; 15(3): 209-221.
15. Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL, Tavassoli, et al. Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of ductal proliferative breast lesions using standardized criteria. Am J Surg Pathol. 1992; 16(12): 1133-1143. (Pubitemid 23004420)
16. Montgomery E, Bronner MP, Goldblum JR, et al. Reproducibility of the diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett esophagus: a reaffirmation. Hum Pathol. 2001; 32(4): 368-378. (Pubitemid 32378298)
17. Yin H, Leong AS. Histologic grading of noninvasive papillary urothelial tumors: validation of the 1998 WHO/ISUP system by immunophenotyping and follow-up. Am J Clin Pathol. 2004; 121(5): 679-687. (Pubitemid 38534000)
18. Nakhleh RE, Gephardt G, Zarbo RJ. Necessity of clinical information in surgical pathology: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 771, 475 surgical pathology cases from 341 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1999; 123(7): 615-619. (Pubitemid 29307669)
19. Nakhleh RE. Patient safety and error reduction in surgical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008; 132(2): 181-185. (Pubitemid 351213782)
20. Ferrara G, Argenyi Z, Argenziano G, et al. The influence of clinical information in the histopathologic diagnosis of melanocytic skin neoplasms. PLoS One. 2009; 4(4): e5375. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005375.
21. 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; 22(4): 303-309. (Pubitemid 28169372)
22. Troxell DB, Sabella JD. Problem areas in pathology practice: uncovered by review of malpractice claims. Am J Surg Pathol. 1994; 18(8): 821-831. (Pubitemid 24229405)
23. Valenstein PN. Formatting pathology reports: applying four design principles to improve communication and patient safety. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008; 132(1): 84-94.
24. Lester SC. Operating room consultations. In: Lester SC, ed. Manual of Surgical Pathology. Philadelphia, P.A.: Elsevier Churchill Livingston; 2006: 49-70.
25. Zarbo RJ, Schmidt WA, Bachner P, et al. Indications and immediate patient outcomes of pathology intraoperative consultation: a College of American Pathologists/Center of Disease Control and Prevention Outcomes Working Group study. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996: 120(1); 19-25. (Pubitemid 26021414)
26. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988: final rule, 42 CFR pt 405, et al. 57 Fed Regist. 7001-7186 (1992).
27. The Joint Commission. Hospital: 2011 national patient safety goals. http://www.jointcommission.org/hap-2011-npsgs/. Accessed April 4, 2011.
28. College of American Pathologists. Accreditation and laboratory improvement. http://www.cap.org/apps/cap.portal.-nfpb5true&- pageLabel5accreditation. Accessed April 4, 2011.
29. Nakhleh RE, Souers R, Brown RW. Significant and unexpected, and critical diagnoses in surgical pathology: a College of American Pathologists' survey of 1130 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009; 133(9): 1375-1378.
30. Pereira TC, Liu Y, Silverman JF. Critical values in surgical pathology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2004; 122(2): 201-205. (Pubitemid 38971352)
31. Pereira TC, Clayton AC, Tazelaar HD, Liu Y, Leon M, Silverman JF. Critical values in cytology. Diagn Cytopathol. 2006; 34(6): 447-451. (Pubitemid 43765041)
32. Kuperman GJ, Teich JM, Tanasijevic MJ, et al. Improving response to critical laboratory results with automation: results of a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1999; 6(6): 512-522. (Pubitemid 30103914)
33. Etchells E, Adhikari NKJ, Cheung C, et al. Real-time clinical alerting: effect of an automated paging system on response time to critical laboratory values-a randomized control trial. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010; 19(2): 99-102.
34. Piva E, Plebani M. Interpretative reports and critical values. Clin Chim Acta. 2009; 404(1): 52-58.