The Current State of Communication of Urgent and Significant, Unexpected Diagnoses in Anatomic Pathology

Author:

Staats Paul N.1,Parkash Vinita2,Otis Christopher N.3,Sharma Poonam4,Ioffe Olga1,Bracamonte Erika R.5

Affiliation:

1. Department of Pathology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore (Staats, Ioffe)

2. Department of Pathology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut (Parkash)

3. Department of Pathology, University of Massachusetts Medical School - Baystate, Springfield (Otis)

4. Department of Pathology, Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, Nebraska (Sharma)

5. Department of Pathology, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson (Bracamonte)

Abstract

Context.—The concept of critical diagnoses in anatomic pathology is relatively recent and rigorous study of the issue is quite limited. The College of American Pathologists and Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology issued a consensus statement in 2012. There has been no multi-institutional study of communication policies since then.Objective.—To survey the policies of anatomic pathology laboratories regarding communication of critical values.Design.—A survey of the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology membership was performed using a 14-question electronic survey tool.Results.—Responses were received from 38 institutions. Thirty-five of 38 (92%) had a policy on anatomic pathology critical values. Twenty-five of 38 (66%) respondents had read the College of American Pathologists/Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology consensus statement. Twelve of 38 (32%) institutions divided critical values into 2 categories, of which 9 used the College of American Pathologists/Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology terminology; 24 used only a single term, of which 11 used critical value. There was substantial variation in the diagnoses that were considered critical. A direct phone call to the responsible provider was uniformly considered an acceptable means of communication; all other methods had mixed or low support. The most common time frame was same day; many laboratories did not specify a timeframe. Most laboratories document date, time, and person to whom the result was communicated in the final report or an addendum report. Eighteen of 38 (47%) laboratories report an auditing mechanism for communication.Conclusions.—Policies for communication of critical/urgent/significant, unexpected results in anatomic pathology are the norm. However, there remains significant variation between institutions in the details of these policies.

Publisher

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Subject

Medical Laboratory Technology,General Medicine,Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Cited by 3 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