Mandatory second opinion in cytopathology
ABSTRACT Mandatory review of outside pathologic material is intended to detect interpretive errors that may have a clinically significant impact on patient care. Prior to definitive treatment of referred patients, the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine requires a review of pertinent pathologic material previously obtained at outside institutions. The aims of this study were to determine if this local standard of practice has a measurable impact on patient care.
The pathologic diagnoses of 499 second opinion cytology cases seen at the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine were studied. Each second opinion was classified as "no diagnostic disagreement", "minor disagreement", or "major disagreement" with respect to the originating institution's interpretation. The clinical impact of major disagreement cases was determined by pathologic and clinical follow-up via chart review.
Second opinion cytology resulted in 37 cases (7.4% of total cases) with major diagnostic disagreements. Clinical and pathologic follow-up was available in 30 of the major disagreement cases; second opinion diagnosis was better supported in 22 of these cases compared to the outside diagnosis. The second opinion in 6 major disagreement cases prompted changes in clinical management.
Major disagreements in second opinion cytology are common, likely reflective of the challenges inherent in the interpretation of cytologic specimens. Although mandatory second opinion of outside cytologic material prompted changes in clinical management in only a small fraction of cases (1.2%), this rate was similar to those previously published for surgical pathology second opinion. These findings support the notion that mandatory second opinion policy as an important part of patient care.
Full-textDOI: · Available from: Michael B Cohen, Oct 06, 2014
- SourceAvailable from: Raouf Nakhleh[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
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.Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine 05/2015; DOI:10.5858/arpa.2014-0511-SA · 2.88 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Double reading may be a valuable tool for improving the quality of patient care by restoring diagnostic errors before final sign-out, but standard double reading would significantly increase costs of pathology. The aim of this study was to assess the added value of routine double reading of defined categories of clinical cytology specimens by specialized cytopathologists. Specialized cytopathologists routinely re-diagnosed blinded defined categories of clinical cytology specimens that had been signed out by routine pathologists from January 2012 up to December 2013. Major and minor discordance rates between initial and expert diagnoses were determined, and both diagnoses were validated by comparison with same-site histological follow-up. Initial and expert diagnoses were concordant in 131/218 specimens (60.1 %). Major and minor discordances were present in 28 (12.8 %) and 59 (27.1 %) specimens, respectively. Pleural fluid, thyroid and urine specimens showed the highest major discordance rates (19.4, 19.2 and 16.7 %, respectively). Histological follow-up (where possible) supported the expert diagnosis in 95.5 % of specimens. Our implemented double reading strategy of defined categories of cytology specimens showed major discordance in 12.8 % of specimens. The expert diagnosis was supported in 95.5 % of discordant cases where histological follow-up was available. This indicates that this double reading strategy is worthwhile and contributes to better cytodiagnostics and quality of patient care, especially for suspicious pleural fluid, thyroid and urine specimens. Our results emphasize that cytopathology is a subspecialization of pathology and requires specialized cytopathologists.Archiv für Pathologische Anatomie und Physiologie und für Klinische Medicin 03/2015; DOI:10.1007/s00428-015-1738-3 · 2.56 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Second-opinion diagnosis (SOD) on pathological material is an accepted practice before definitive therapy is considered for referred patients. The thyroid gland is an anatomical site prone to diagnostic disagreement between pathologists. We performed a review of the literature that addressed the role of interinstitutional SOD on thyroid fine-needle aspirations (FNAs).Cancer Cytopathology 08/2014; 122(8). DOI:10.1002/cncy.21436 · 3.81 Impact Factor