DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Errors in Surgical Pathology Reports: a Study from a Major Center in Pakistan

  • Ahmad, Zubair (Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Histopathology, Aga Khan University Hospital) ;
  • Idrees, Romana (Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Histopathology, Aga Khan University Hospital) ;
  • Uddin, Nasir (Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Histopathology, Aga Khan University Hospital) ;
  • Ahmed, Arsalan (Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Histopathology, Aga Khan University Hospital) ;
  • Fatima, Saira (Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Histopathology, Aga Khan University Hospital)
  • Published : 2016.06.01

Abstract

Background: Errors in surgical pathology diagnosis can have serious consequences for the patient. Since the final product of a surgical pathology lab is the report, errors can be picked by reviewing reports of cases. Aim: To determine the frequency and types of error in surgical pathology reports of cases signed out in 2014 in a laboratory in Karachi, Pakistan. Materials and Methods: All surgical pathology reports in which changes were made in the original report after sign out and an amended report was issued were included. Errors included: (1) misinterpretations; (2) missing critical information; (3) erroneous critical information; (4) misidentification; and (5) typographic errors. Results: Errors were identified in 210 cases (0.37%). These comprised 199 formalin fixed specimens and 11 frozen sections. The latter represented 3.8% of a total of 2,170 frozen sections. Of the 11 frozen section errors, 10 were misinterpretations. Of the 199 permanent specimens, 99 (49.7%) were misinterpretations, 65 (32.7%) belonged to missing critical information category, 8 (4%) belonged to erroneous critical information category, 8(4%) were misidentifications, 16(8%) were typographic errors while 3 cases (1.5%) were other errors. Most misinterpretations occurred in the gastro intestinal, liver and pancreato biliary tract (23.2%) and breast (13.1%). Another 87 cases were reviewed on the clinicians' request. However diagnosis after review remained the same as the original diagnosis. In 49 out of these (56.3%), additional workup was performed at the time of the review. Conclusions: Our findings were similar to other published studies. We need to develop documented procedures for timely review of cases to detect errors.

Keywords

Surgical pathology;amended reports;errors;misinterpretations;omission of critical information

References

  1. Ahmad Z, Arshad H, Hasan SH, et al (2011). CNS neoplasms in Pakistan, a pathological perspective. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 12, 317-21
  2. Ahmad Z, Arshad H, Fatima S, et al (2013). Gastrointestinal, liver and biliary tract pathology: a histopathological and epidemiological perspective from Pakistan with a review of the literature. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 6997-7005 https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.11.6997
  3. Ahmad Z, Din NU, Minhas K, et al (2015). Epidemiologic data, tumor size, histologic tumor type and grade, pathologic staging and follow up in cancers of the ampullary region and head of pancreas in 311 whipple resection specimens of pakistani patients. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 16, 7541-6 https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.17.7541
  4. Ahmad Z, Idrees R, Fatima S, et al (2014). How our practice of histopathology, especially tumour pathology has changed in the last two decades: reflections from a major referral center in Pakistan. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 3829-49. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.9.3829
  5. Chaudhary S, Kahn LB, Bhuiya T (2014). Retrospective blinded review of interpretational diagnostic discrepancies in Surgical Pathology: 18 years of experience at a tertiary care facility. Ann Clin Lab Sci, 44, 469-75
  6. Cooper K (2006). Errors and error rates in Surgical Pathology: An Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology survey. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 130, 607-9.
  7. Finkelstein A, Levy GH, Cohen P, et al (2012). Addenda in pathology reports: trends and their implications. Am J Clin Pathol, 137, 606-11. https://doi.org/10.1309/AJCPL5U2SVRAXZCQ
  8. Meier FA, Varney RC, Zarbo RJ (2011). Study of amended reports to educate and improve surgical pathology processes. Adv Anat Pathol, 18, 406-13 https://doi.org/10.1097/PAP.0b013e318229bf20
  9. Nakhleh RE, Zarbo RJ (1998). Amended reports in surgical pathology and implications for diagnostic error reduction and avoidance: a college of american pathologists q-probes study of 1,667,547 accessioned cases in 359 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 122, 303-9.
  10. Nakhleh RE, Gephardt G, Zarbo RJ (1999). Necessity of clinical information in surgical pathology: a College of American Pathologist Q-probes study of 771,475 surgical pathology cases from 341 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 123, 615-9.
  11. Nakhleh R, Coffin C, Cooper K (2006). (For the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology) Recommendations for quality assurance and improvement in surgical and autopsy pathology. Hum Pathol, 37, 985-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2006.03.010
  12. Nakhleh RE, Nose V, Colasacco C, et al (2015). Interpretive diagnostic error reduction in surgical pathology and cytology: guideline from the collage of american pathologists pathology and laboratory quality center and the association of directors of anatomic and surgical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 12.
  13. Renshaw AA, Young ML, Jiroutek MR (2003). Many cases need to be reviewed to compare performance in surgical pathology? Am J Clin Pathol, 119, 388-91. https://doi.org/10.1309/QYYB3K0BHPCEGQG3
  14. Renshaw AA, Gould EW (2006). Correlation of workload with disagreement and amendment rates in surgical pathology and nongynecologic cytology. Am J Clin Pathol, 125, 820-2. https://doi.org/10.1309/4G41TXC06902MWCK
  15. Roy JE, Hunt JL (2010). Detection and classification of diagnostic discrepancies (errors) in surgical pathology. Adv Anat Pathol, 17, 359-65. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAP.0b013e3181ece0db
  16. Smith ML, Raab SS (2012). Directed peer review in surgical pathology. Adv Anat Pathol, 19, 331-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAP.0b013e31826661b7
  17. Volmer KE, Idowu MO, Hunt JL, et al (2014). Surgical pathology report defects. a college of american pathologists q-probes study of 73 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 138, 602-12. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2013-0099-CP
  18. Zarbo RJ, Meier FA, Raab SS (2005). Error detection in anatomic pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 129, 1237-45.