Communicating Certainty in Pathology Reports: Interpretation Differences Among Staff Pathologists, Clinicians, and Residents in a Multicenter Study

Author:

Gibson Blake A.1,McKinnon Elizabeth2,Bentley Rex C.2,Mohlman Jeffrey3,Witt Benjamin L.3,Yang Eric J.4,Geisler Daniel5,DeFrances Marie5

Affiliation:

1. From the Department of Psychiatry (Gibson), University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

2. the Department of Pathology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina (McKinnon, Bentley)

3. the Department of Pathology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City (Mohlman, Witt)

4. and the Department of Pathology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California (Yang)

5. Department of Pathology (Geisler, DeFrances), University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Abstract

Context.— Pathology reports are the main modality in which results are communicated to other physicians. For various reasons, the diagnosis may be qualified on a spectrum of uncertainty. Objective.— To examine how communication of uncertainty is an unexamined source of possible medical error. No study to our knowledge has examined pathology reports across multiple institutions. This study seeks to identify commonly used phrases of diagnostic uncertainty and their interpreted meanings by surgical pathologists and clinicians. Design.— Anonymous surveys were completed at 3 major US academic institutions by 18 practicing staff pathologists, 12 pathology residents, 53 staff clinicians, and 50 resident/allied health professional clinicians at 5 standard tumor boards. All participants rated percentage certainty associated with 7 diagnostic terms. Pathologists answered 2 questions related to the ability to clarify a diagnosis using a comment and comfort wording pathology reports. Clinicians answered questions on how often they read a pathology report comment, if they found the comment helpful, and how comfortable they were in reading pathology reports. Results.— A wide range in percentage certainty was found for each of the 7 diagnostic phrases. Both staff and resident clinicians and residents showed wide variability in interpreting the phrases. Twenty-five of 50 staff clinicians (52%) were very comfortable reading a pathology report, whereas only 4 of 53 resident clinicians (8%) were very comfortable reading a pathology report. Twenty-four of 53 staff clinicians (63%) reported always reading the comment, yet only 20 of 53 (27%) always found the comment helpful. The phrases “diagnostic of” and “consistent with” had the strongest agreement in meaning. The weakest agreement was between “suspicious for” and “compatible with.” Conclusions.— Efforts to standardize diagnostic terms may improve communication.

Publisher

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Subject

Medical Laboratory Technology,General Medicine,Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Cited by 6 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3