» Articles » PMID: 30375329

Post-Mortem Examination As a Quality Improvement Instrument

Overview
Date 2018 Oct 31
PMID 30375329
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Autopsies are considered an important quality assurance instrument in medicine, yet autopsy rates in many countries have been declining for many years. The proper role of the post-mortem examination in modern medicine is a matter deserving of study.

Methods: This review is based on a selective search of the literature for publications on the role of autopsies as a quality assurance instrument.

Results: Multiple studies have revealed substantial rates of discrepancy between pre- and post-mortem diagnoses, with reported rates lying in the range of 10% to 40%. The frequen- cy of so-called Goldman I erroneous diagnoses, i.e., those that are determined at autopsy and might have influenced the patient's survival, ranges from 2.4% to 10.7%. It can be as- sumed that the rate of serious diagnostic errors revealed by autopsy would fall if autopsy rates were to rise. Independently of the above-mentioned studies, a large-scale study of data from the period 1988-2008 revealed a decline in the rate of Goldman I erroneous diagnoses by more than half. The qualitative effects of autopsies, however, are difficult to measure. At present, imaging studies and minimally invasive or endoscopic diagnostic procedures can be performed post mortem as well, but the available studies show that these methods do not yet suffice to enable a coherent pathogenetic classification of disease processes.

Conclusion: Autopsies should still be performed in the interest of quality assurance in medicine. Uniform standards in the performance and reporting of autopsies could lead to im- provement in the use of the data acquired through them.

Citing Articles

Clinical vs. autopsy diagnostic discrepancies in the intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis of autopsy series.

Marcoen B, Blot K, Vogelaers D, Blot S Intensive Care Med. 2024; 50(12):1971-1982.

PMID: 39287650 DOI: 10.1007/s00134-024-07641-y.


Code of practice for medical autopsies: a minimum standard position paper for pathology departments performing medical (hospital) autopsies in adults.

Alfsen G, Gulczynski J, Kholova I, Latten B, Martinez J, Metzger M Virchows Arch. 2021; 480(3):509-517.

PMID: 34888730 PMC: 8660654. DOI: 10.1007/s00428-021-03242-y.


The autopsy at the time of SARS-CoV-2: Protocol and lessons.

Carpenito L, DErcole M, Porta F, Di Blasi E, Doi P, Fagara G Ann Diagn Pathol. 2020; 48:151562.

PMID: 32653819 PMC: 7334655. DOI: 10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2020.151562.

References
1.
Hofstadter F . [Autopsy in oncology : Treatment validation in cancer centers and clinical cancer registries]. Pathologe. 2017; 38(5):384-386. DOI: 10.1007/s00292-017-0304-y. View

2.
Schulz-Schaeffer W, Dillmann U, Fassbender K, Wrede A . [Requirements of neurologists for autopsies]. Pathologe. 2017; 38(5):387-393. DOI: 10.1007/s00292-017-0336-3. View

3.
Winters B, Custer J, Galvagno Jr S, Colantuoni E, Kapoor S, Lee H . Diagnostic errors in the intensive care unit: a systematic review of autopsy studies. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012; 21(11):894-902. DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000803. View

4.
Ihlow J, Westermann J . [Clinical Autopsies from the Perspective of a Hematologist/Oncologist]. Pathologe. 2017; 38(5):380-383. DOI: 10.1007/s00292-017-0318-5. View

5.
Setlow V . The need for a national autopsy policy. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996; 120(8):773-7. View