Improving pathology reports using business intelligence techniques: An experimental study

ACIS 2015 Proceedings - 26th Australasian Conference on Information Systems

Volumn , Issue , 2015, Pages

  Alahmdai, Yasmine ^a   O’Donnell, Peter ^a  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Business intelligence; Pathology; Pathology reporting; Report format

Indexed keywords

EID: 85054358653     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (15)

1. Alzougool, B., Lederman, R., Dreyfus, S. Naish, L. Monagle, P., Smith, S., Audehm, R. Graves, D. (2013). Effective communication of pathology results to requesting practitioners and consumers. Australian Department of Health. [Accessed 1 July 2015] online at: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/publications/publishing.nsf/Content/QUPP-effectivecommunication-of-pathology-results-to-requesting-practitioners-and-consumers.
2. Aumann, K., Kayser, G., Amann, D., Bronsert, P., Hauschke, D., Palade, E., Passlick, B., & Werner, M. (2013). The format type has impact on the quality of pathology reports of oncological lung resection specimens. Lung Cancer, 81(3), 382-387.
3. Doll, W. J., & Torkzadeh, G. (1988). The measurement of end-user computing satisfaction. MIS quarterly, pp259-274.
4. Few, S. (2013). Information dashboard design: Displaying data for at-a-glance monitoring (2nd ed.) Burlingame, CA: Analytics Press.
5. Mann H. B. & Whitney D. R. (1947) “On a test whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other” The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 18, pp50-60.
6. Mies, C. (2015). “Communicating effectively in surgical pathology” in R. Nakhleh (Ed.) Error reduction and prevention in surgical pathology. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
7. Mulsow, J., Feeley, T., & Tierney, S. (2012). Beyond consent—improving understanding in surgical patients. American Journal of Surgery, 203:1, pp112-120.
8. National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia (2015). NATA Procedures for accreditation. [Accessed 15 December, 2015] online at: http://www.nata.com.au/nata/phocadownload/publications/Guidance_information/NATAProcedures-for-Accreditation.pdf.
9. rd ed.). Available online at [Accessed 29 June 2015]: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/92DFF5519A8D199ECA257BF000199DD6/$File/Reqmts%20Info%20Coms%202013.pdf
10. Neuman, L. (2000). Social research methods: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
11. Pathology Australia (2015). 2015 Federal budget submission. Available online at [Accessed 1 July ]: http://www.pathologyaustralia.com.au/wpcontent/uploads/2015/02/150204_bud_Pathology-Australia-Federal-Budget-Sub- 2015.pdf
12. Royal College of Pathologists of Australia (2013). Pathology units and terminology. Accessed 29 June 2015 from www.rcpa.edu.au
13. Royal College of Pathologists of Australia (2015). Structured pathology reporting of cancer. Available online at [Accessed 29 June 2015]: from https://www.rcpa.edu.au/Library/PractisingPathology/Structured-Pathology-Reporting-of-Cancer
14. Valenstein, P. (2008). “Formatting pathology reports: applying four design principles to improve communication and patient safety” Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine 132(1), 84–94.
15. nd Ed. Chandos Publishing (Elsevier). pp 350.