Skip to main content

Evaluation and Reduction of Diagnostic Errors in Pathology Using an Evidence-Based Approach

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 1521 Accesses

Abstract

A substantial proportion of patients’ diagnoses and treatments are dependent on reliable tissue diagnoses in surgical pathology and cytopathology. In cancer management, tissue diagnosis and staging are the most important determinants of prognosis and therapy. Likewise, determining the level of rejection in allograft biopsies is the main determinant of immunosuppressive therapy. The importance of a correct diagnosis in these situations cannot be overemphasized. In attempting to reduce errors many advocate a systems approach. In this scheme of error reduction a handful of reasons are cited as the primary causes of errors. They include lack of communication, variable input, complexity, inconsistency, human intervention, tight time constraints and a hierarchical culture. The literature on pathology errors is far from comprehensive and has not for the most part taken this approach but does offer clues of how errors occur and how they could be addressed. In this chapter, the author discusses how errors occur in surgical pathology and then attempts to adapt to pathology existing proven knowledge used in many industries to reduce errors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Racusen LC, Solez K, Colvin RB, et al. The Banff 97 working classification of renal allograft pathology. Kidney Int. 1999;55:713–23.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Demetris AJ, Batts KP, Dhillon AP, et al. Banff schema for grading liver allograft rejection: an international consensus document. Hepatology. 1997;25:658–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A, editors. AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th ed. New York: Springer; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Raab SS, Grzybicki DM, Janosky JE, et al. Clinical impact and frequency of anatomic pathology errors in cancer diagnoses. Cancer. 2005;104:2205–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Spath PL. Reducing errors through work systems improvement. In: Spath PL, editor. Error reduction in health care. Chicago: AHA Press; 1999. p. 199–234.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Weiss MA. Analytic variables: diagnostic accuracy. In: Nakhleh RE, Fitzgibbons PL, editors. Quality management in anatomic pathology: promoting patient safety through systems improvement and error reduction. Northfield: The College of American Pathologists; 2005. p. 55–61.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Meier FA, Zarbo RJ, Varney RC, et al. Amended reports: development and validation of a taxonomy of defects. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008;130:238–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kornstein MJ, Byme SP. The medicolegal aspect of error in pathology; A search of jury verdicts and settlements. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131:615–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Troxel DB. Medicolegal aspects of error in pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;130:617–9.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Nakhleh RE. Lost, mislabeled and unsuitable surgical pathology specimens. Pathol Case Rev. 2003;8:98–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. The Joint Commission. Accreditation Program; Laboratory National Patient Safety goals. http://www.jointcommission.org/GeneralPublic/NPSG/gp_npsg.htm. Accessed 1 May 2010.

  12. Simpson JB. A unique approach for reducing specimen labeling errors: combining marketing techniques with performance improvement. Clin Leadership Manag Rev. 2001;15:401–5.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Makary MA, Epstein J, Pronovost PJ, Millman EA, Hartmann EC, Freischlag JA. Surgical specimen identification errors: a new measure of quality in surgical care. Surgery. 2007;141(4):450–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Valenstine PN, Raab SS, Walsh MK. Identification errors involving clinical laboratories: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of patient and specimen identification errors at 120 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130:1106–13.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Zarbo RJ, Tuthill M, D’Angelo R, et al. The Henry Ford Production System; reduction of surgical pathology in-process misidentification defects by bar code-specific work process standardization. Am J Clin Pathol. 2009;131:468–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. D’Angelo R, Zarbo RJ. The Henry Ford Production System; Measures of process defects and waste in surgical pathology as a basis for quality improvement initiatives. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007;128:423–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wolf AC, Hammond EH, Schwartz JN, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal grown factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131(1):18–43.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Nakhleh RE. Patient safety and error reduction in ­surgical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132:181–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Nakhleh RE, Souers R, Brown RW. Significant and unexpected, and critical diagnosis in surgical pathology: a college of American Pathologists’ survey of 1130 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133:1375–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Branston LK, Greening S, Newcombe RG, et al. The implementation of guidelines and computerized forms improves the completeness of cancer pathology reporting. The CROPS project: a randomized controlled trial in pathology. Eur J Cancer. 2002;38:764–72.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lingard L, Espin S, Whyte S, et al. Communication failures in the operating room: an observational classification of recurrent types and effects. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13(5):330–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Krautscheild LC. Improving communication among healthcare providers: preparing student nurses for practice. Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh. 2008;5:1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ferrara G, Argenyi Z, Argenziano G, et al. The influence of clinical information in the histopathologic diagnosis of melanocytic skin neoplasms. PLoS One. 2009;4:e5375.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nakhleh RE, Gephardt G, Zarbo RJ. Necessity of clinical information in surgical pathology: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Study of 771,475 surgical pathology cases from 341 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1999;123:615–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Nakhleh RE, Zarbo RJ. Amended reports in surgical pathology and implications for diagnostic error ­detection and avoidance: a College of American Pathologists’ Q-Probes Study of 1, 667, 547 accessioned cases in 359 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1998;22:303–9.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Troxell DB, Sabella JD. Problem areas in pathology practice: uncovered by review of malpractice claims. Am J Surg Pathol. 1994;18:821–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Raab SS, Grzybicki DM, Condel JL, et al. Effect of lean method implementation in the histopathology section of an anatomical pathology laboratory. J Clin Pathol. 2008;61:1193–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Condel JL, Sharbaugh DT, Raab SS, et al. Error free pathology: applying lean production methods to anatomic pathology. Clin Lab Med. 2004;24:865–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rosai J. Borderline epithelial lesions of the breast. Am J Surg Pathol. 1991;15:209–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL, Tavassoli FA, et al. Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of ­ductal proliferative breast lesions using standardized criteria. Am J Surg Pathol. 1992;16(12):1133–43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Montgomery E, Bronner MP, Goldblum JR, et al. Reproducibility of the diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett esophagus: a reaffirmation. Hum Pathol. 2001;32(4):368–78.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Yin H, Leong AS. Histologic grading of noninvasive papillary urothelial tumors: validation of the 1998 WHO/ISUP system by immunophenotyping and ­follow-up. Am J Clin Pathol. 2004;121(5):679–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ruby SG, Henson DE. Practice protocols for surgical pathology: a communication from the Cancer Committee of the College of American Pathologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1994;118:120–1.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Fielding LP, Henson DE. Multiple prognostic factors and outcome analysis in patients with cancer: communication from the American Joint Committee on Cancer. Cancer. 1993;17:2426–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Powsner SM, Costa J, Homer RJ. Clinicians are from Mars and pathologists are from Venus: clinician interpretation of pathology reports. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:1040–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Valenstein PN. Formatting pathology reports: applying four design principles to improve communication and patient safety. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132:84–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Norris B. Human factors and safe patient care. J Nurs Manag. 2009;17(2):203–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. D’Addessi A, Bongiovanni L, Volpe A, Pinto F, Bassi P. Human factor in surgery: from Three Mile Island to the operation room. Urol Int. 2009;83(3):249–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Novis D. Routine review of surgical pathology cases as a method by which to reduce diagnostic errors in a community hospital. Pathol Case Rev. 2005;10:63–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Renshaw AA, Gould EW. Measuring the value of review of pathology material by a second pathologist. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;125:737–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Standardization of the surgical pathology report. Am J Surg Pathol. 1992;16(1):84–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Brown RW. Quality management in the histology laboratory. In: Nakhleh RE, Fitzgibbons PL, editors. Quality management in anatomic pathology: promoting patient safety through systems improvement and error reduction. Northfield: The College of American Pathologists; 2005. p. 77–92.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Harrold LR, Field TS, Gurwitz JH. Knowledge, ­pattern of care and outcomes of care for generalists and specialists. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14:499–511.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Donohoe MT. Comparing generalist and specialist care; discrepancies, deficiencies and excesses. Arch Intern Med. 1998;158:1596–608.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raouf E. Nakhleh .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nakhleh, R.E. (2011). Evaluation and Reduction of Diagnostic Errors in Pathology Using an Evidence-Based Approach. In: Marchevsky, A., Wick, M. (eds) Evidence Based Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1030-1_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1030-1_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-1029-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-1030-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics