» Articles » PMID: 25965939

Interpretive Diagnostic Error Reduction in Surgical Pathology and Cytology: Guideline From the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center and the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology

Overview
Specialty Pathology
Date 2015 May 13
PMID 25965939
Citations 18
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Context: Additional reviews of diagnostic surgical and cytology cases have been shown to detect diagnostic discrepancies.

Objective: To develop, through a systematic review of the literature, recommendations for the review of pathology cases to detect or prevent interpretive diagnostic errors.

Design: The College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center in association with the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology convened an expert panel to develop an evidence-based guideline to help define the role of case reviews in surgical pathology and cytology. A literature search was conducted to gather data on the review of cases in surgical pathology and cytology.

Results: The panel drafted 5 recommendations, with strong agreement from open comment period participants ranging from 87% to 93%. The recommendations are: (1) anatomic pathologists should develop procedures for the review of selected pathology cases to detect disagreements and potential interpretive errors; (2) anatomic pathologists should perform case reviews in a timely manner to avoid having a negative impact on patient care; (3) anatomic pathologists should have documented case review procedures that are relevant to their practice setting; (4) anatomic pathologists should continuously monitor and document the results of case reviews; and (5) if pathology case reviews show poor agreement within a defined case type, anatomic pathologists should take steps to improve agreement.

Conclusions: Evidence exists that case reviews detect errors; therefore, the expert panel recommends that anatomic pathologists develop procedures for the review of pathology cases to detect disagreements and potential interpretive errors, in order to improve the quality of patient care.

Citing Articles

Rate of Diagnostic Change in Surgical Pathology Reports after Mandatory Intradepartmental Peer Review in a Tertiary Hospital in the Philippines: A Retrospective Study.

Solivas J, Diwa M Acta Med Philipp. 2024; 58(16):42-49.

PMID: 39399360 PMC: 11467551. DOI: 10.47895/amp.v58i16.3493.


Understanding the errors made by artificial intelligence algorithms in histopathology in terms of patient impact.

Evans H, Snead D NPJ Digit Med. 2024; 7(1):89.

PMID: 38600151 PMC: 11006652. DOI: 10.1038/s41746-024-01093-w.


Computational pathology: A survey review and the way forward.

Hosseini M, Bejnordi B, Quoc-Huy Trinh V, Chan L, Hasan D, Li X J Pathol Inform. 2024; 15:100357.

PMID: 38420608 PMC: 10900832. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpi.2023.100357.


Seeing the random forest through the decision trees. Supporting learning health systems from histopathology with machine learning models: Challenges and opportunities.

Gonzalez R, Saha A, Campbell C, Nejat P, Lokker C, Norgan A J Pathol Inform. 2024; 15:100347.

PMID: 38162950 PMC: 10755052. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpi.2023.100347.


Improving quality control in the routine practice for histopathological interpretation of gastrointestinal endoscopic biopsies using artificial intelligence.

Ko Y, Choi Y, Kim M, Park Y, Ashraf M, Quinones Robles W PLoS One. 2022; 17(12):e0278542.

PMID: 36520777 PMC: 9754254. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278542.