Study of parameters to ensure quality control in histopathology reporting

A meta-analysis at a tertiary care center

Asim Qureshi, Asif Loya, Muhammad Azam, Mudassar Hussain, Sajid Mushtaq, Tariq Mahmood

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Context : When surgical pathology reports are dispatched to patients and clinicians, sometimes they are discovered to have errors, and it is a common practice for the pathologists to issue amended reports. Measuring the rate at which surgical pathology reports are amended can be used as a tool for assuring quality control in histopathology. Aim : The aim of this study was determine the parameters that can be used as an assessment tool to minimize errors in histopathology. Materials and Methods : This study was carried out at a major histopathology center. The duration of this study was from January 2001 through January 2011(ten years). Following parameters were looked for: Interpretational errors, permanent and frozen section correlation, intradepartmental consultation and cases sent for second opinion, cases brought in tissue committee meetings, audits, and cases discussed in hospital meetings. Results : A total of 28,1931 surgical pathology cases were signed out during the ten-year period. On these, addendums were issued on 5730 cases (2.0%). Additional report issued on 3521 (1.3%). Addendum/corrected report issued for 2209 cases, which was 0.7%, representing the true interpretational error. And out of this number, a second opinion was taken for 5980 cases, and 78 were sent abroad for second opinion. Conclusion : Review by a second pathologist is a strong tool to minimize errors in surgical pathology reporting. This may be done prior to or after the report is dispatched and the case is discussed in the hospital for treatment purposes. This analysis concludes that true interpretational error occurred only in 0.7% of cases, which is an attribute to the strong peer review in the department.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)180-182
Number of pages3
JournalIndian Journal of Pathology and Microbiology
Volume55
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2012

Fingerprint

Surgical Pathology
Tertiary Care Centers
Quality Control
Meta-Analysis
Referral and Consultation
Peer Review
Frozen Sections
Pathologists
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Audit
  • histopathology
  • quality control

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Microbiology (medical)

Cite this

Study of parameters to ensure quality control in histopathology reporting : A meta-analysis at a tertiary care center. / Qureshi, Asim; Loya, Asif; Azam, Muhammad; Hussain, Mudassar; Mushtaq, Sajid; Mahmood, Tariq.

In: Indian Journal of Pathology and Microbiology, Vol. 55, No. 2, 04.2012, p. 180-182.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Qureshi, Asim ; Loya, Asif ; Azam, Muhammad ; Hussain, Mudassar ; Mushtaq, Sajid ; Mahmood, Tariq. / Study of parameters to ensure quality control in histopathology reporting : A meta-analysis at a tertiary care center. In: Indian Journal of Pathology and Microbiology. 2012 ; Vol. 55, No. 2. pp. 180-182.
@article{5a632342745545f4b86523bc0ed975c0,
title = "Study of parameters to ensure quality control in histopathology reporting: A meta-analysis at a tertiary care center",
abstract = "Context : When surgical pathology reports are dispatched to patients and clinicians, sometimes they are discovered to have errors, and it is a common practice for the pathologists to issue amended reports. Measuring the rate at which surgical pathology reports are amended can be used as a tool for assuring quality control in histopathology. Aim : The aim of this study was determine the parameters that can be used as an assessment tool to minimize errors in histopathology. Materials and Methods : This study was carried out at a major histopathology center. The duration of this study was from January 2001 through January 2011(ten years). Following parameters were looked for: Interpretational errors, permanent and frozen section correlation, intradepartmental consultation and cases sent for second opinion, cases brought in tissue committee meetings, audits, and cases discussed in hospital meetings. Results : A total of 28,1931 surgical pathology cases were signed out during the ten-year period. On these, addendums were issued on 5730 cases (2.0{\%}). Additional report issued on 3521 (1.3{\%}). Addendum/corrected report issued for 2209 cases, which was 0.7{\%}, representing the true interpretational error. And out of this number, a second opinion was taken for 5980 cases, and 78 were sent abroad for second opinion. Conclusion : Review by a second pathologist is a strong tool to minimize errors in surgical pathology reporting. This may be done prior to or after the report is dispatched and the case is discussed in the hospital for treatment purposes. This analysis concludes that true interpretational error occurred only in 0.7{\%} of cases, which is an attribute to the strong peer review in the department.",
keywords = "Audit, histopathology, quality control",
author = "Asim Qureshi and Asif Loya and Muhammad Azam and Mudassar Hussain and Sajid Mushtaq and Tariq Mahmood",
year = "2012",
month = "4",
doi = "10.4103/0377-4929.97857",
language = "English",
volume = "55",
pages = "180--182",
journal = "Indian Journal of Pathology and Microbiology",
issn = "0377-4929",
publisher = "Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Study of parameters to ensure quality control in histopathology reporting

T2 - A meta-analysis at a tertiary care center

AU - Qureshi, Asim

AU - Loya, Asif

AU - Azam, Muhammad

AU - Hussain, Mudassar

AU - Mushtaq, Sajid

AU - Mahmood, Tariq

PY - 2012/4

Y1 - 2012/4

N2 - Context : When surgical pathology reports are dispatched to patients and clinicians, sometimes they are discovered to have errors, and it is a common practice for the pathologists to issue amended reports. Measuring the rate at which surgical pathology reports are amended can be used as a tool for assuring quality control in histopathology. Aim : The aim of this study was determine the parameters that can be used as an assessment tool to minimize errors in histopathology. Materials and Methods : This study was carried out at a major histopathology center. The duration of this study was from January 2001 through January 2011(ten years). Following parameters were looked for: Interpretational errors, permanent and frozen section correlation, intradepartmental consultation and cases sent for second opinion, cases brought in tissue committee meetings, audits, and cases discussed in hospital meetings. Results : A total of 28,1931 surgical pathology cases were signed out during the ten-year period. On these, addendums were issued on 5730 cases (2.0%). Additional report issued on 3521 (1.3%). Addendum/corrected report issued for 2209 cases, which was 0.7%, representing the true interpretational error. And out of this number, a second opinion was taken for 5980 cases, and 78 were sent abroad for second opinion. Conclusion : Review by a second pathologist is a strong tool to minimize errors in surgical pathology reporting. This may be done prior to or after the report is dispatched and the case is discussed in the hospital for treatment purposes. This analysis concludes that true interpretational error occurred only in 0.7% of cases, which is an attribute to the strong peer review in the department.

AB - Context : When surgical pathology reports are dispatched to patients and clinicians, sometimes they are discovered to have errors, and it is a common practice for the pathologists to issue amended reports. Measuring the rate at which surgical pathology reports are amended can be used as a tool for assuring quality control in histopathology. Aim : The aim of this study was determine the parameters that can be used as an assessment tool to minimize errors in histopathology. Materials and Methods : This study was carried out at a major histopathology center. The duration of this study was from January 2001 through January 2011(ten years). Following parameters were looked for: Interpretational errors, permanent and frozen section correlation, intradepartmental consultation and cases sent for second opinion, cases brought in tissue committee meetings, audits, and cases discussed in hospital meetings. Results : A total of 28,1931 surgical pathology cases were signed out during the ten-year period. On these, addendums were issued on 5730 cases (2.0%). Additional report issued on 3521 (1.3%). Addendum/corrected report issued for 2209 cases, which was 0.7%, representing the true interpretational error. And out of this number, a second opinion was taken for 5980 cases, and 78 were sent abroad for second opinion. Conclusion : Review by a second pathologist is a strong tool to minimize errors in surgical pathology reporting. This may be done prior to or after the report is dispatched and the case is discussed in the hospital for treatment purposes. This analysis concludes that true interpretational error occurred only in 0.7% of cases, which is an attribute to the strong peer review in the department.

KW - Audit

KW - histopathology

KW - quality control

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84863755040&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84863755040&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4103/0377-4929.97857

DO - 10.4103/0377-4929.97857

M3 - Review article

VL - 55

SP - 180

EP - 182

JO - Indian Journal of Pathology and Microbiology

JF - Indian Journal of Pathology and Microbiology

SN - 0377-4929

IS - 2

ER -