Skip to main content

Communicating Effectively in Surgical Pathology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Error Reduction and Prevention in Surgical Pathology
  • 954 Accesses

Abstract

Surgical pathologists have two main communication tasks: (1) convey clear, accurate, unambiguous, and complete diagnostic information in a timely fashion; and (2) create a permanent record of findings to guide treatment and ensure accountability, a medico-legal duty. While it is true that the most beautifully composed report is worthless if the diagnosis is inaccurate, it is equally true that the most astute diagnosis, if communicated poorly, may be misconstrued. Because faulty comprehension can lead to clinical error, surgical pathologists must attend to all facets of report construction that can affect comprehension: design layout, the audience, format, style and language, word order, saying too little (incomplete) or too much (distracting), and using addenda effectively. This chapter provides ten practical tips for writing effective and error-free diagnoses, as well as communicating urgent and significant, unexpected diagnoses.

Effective oral communication is an equally important learned skill and has its own “rules of the road.” Surgical pathologists must know how to clearly articulate useful frozen section (FS) diagnoses in real time, and accurately document the exchange. After rendering a final report, the most valued pathologists are able, willing, and comfortable in discussing reported findings with nonpathologist clinicians.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Nakhleh RE. Quality in surgical pathology communication and reporting. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011;135:1394–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Renshaw SA, Mena-Allauca M, Touriz M, Renshaw A, Gould EW. The impact of template format on the completeness of surgical pathology reports. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138:121–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. MyBiopsy.org [Internet]. College of American Pathologists. Tools: how to read your pathology report. http://www.cap.org/apps/docs/reference/myBiopsy/index2.html; Cancer.net [Internet] American Society of Clinical Oncology. Reading a pathology report [updated 2013 March; cited 2014 Oct 21]. Available from: http://www.cancer.net/navigating-cancer-care/diagnosing-cancer/reports-and-results/reading-pathology-report; and National Cancer Institute Fact Sheet [Internet]. National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. Pathology Reports [updated 2010 Sep] http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/detection/pathology-reportsAccessed 21 Oct 2014.

  5. Webster’s seventh new collegiate dictionary. Springfield: G. & C. Merriam Company; 1971. Narrate, p. 562; synoptic, p. 894.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hsu J. The secrets of storytelling: why we love a good yarn. Scientific American Mind. Aug 2008: 46–51.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Pearce N. Style—what is it and does it matter? In: Hall GM, editor. How to write a paper. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Books; 1998. p. 116–21.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Williams JM. Style: ten lessons in clarity and grace. 7th ed. New York: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Greene AE. Writing science in plain English. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2013.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Zarbo RJ, Gephardt GN, Howanitz PJ. Intralaboratory timeliness of surgical pathology reports: results of two college of American pathologists Q-probes studies of biopsies and complex specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996;120:234–44.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Zarbo RJ, Nakhleh RE, Walsh ME, Quality Practices Committee, College of American Pathologists. Customer satisfaction in anatomic pathology: a college of American pathologists Q-probes study of 3065 physician surveys from 94 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003;127:23–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nakhleh RE, Souers R, Ruby SG. Physician satisfaction with surgical pathology reports—a 2-year college of American pathologists Q-tracks study. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132:1719–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lankshear S, Srigley J, McGowan T, Yurcan M, Sawka C. Standardized synoptic cancer pathology reports—so what and who cares? A population-based satisfaction survey of 970 pathologists, surgeons, and oncologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013;137:1599–1602.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wikipedia contributors. Lead paragraph [Internet]. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia; 2014 Aug 26, 18:09 UTC. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lead_paragraph&oldid=575450528Accessed 21 Oct 2014.

  16. Personal communication. Dr. Cecilia Strode, surgeon.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Idowu MO, Wiles A, Wan W, Wilkinson DS, Powers CN. Equivocal or ambiguous terminologies in pathology: Focus of continuous quality improvement? Am J Surg Pathol. 2013;37:1722–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Coffin CM. Turnaround Time. In: Nakhleh RE, Fitzgibbons PL, editors. Quality improvement manual in anatomic pathology. 2nd ed. Northfield: College of American Pathologists (CAP); 2002. p. 42–8.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Nakhleh RE, Myers JL, Allen TC, DeYoung BR, Fitzgibbons PL, Funkhouser WK, et al. Consensus statement on effective communication of urgent diagnoses and significant, unexpected diagnoses in surgical pathology and cytopathology from the College of American Pathologists and Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012;136:148–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Davis GG, Scott MA. Impact of law on pathology practice—everyday occurrences. In: Davis GG Pathology and law: a practical guide for the pathologist. New York: Springer-Verlag New York Inc.; 2004. p. 17–76.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Carter DK. Regulatory compliance. In: Nakhleh RE, Fitzgibbons PL, editors. Quality improvement manual in anatomic pathology. 2nd ed. Northfield: College of American Pathologists (CAP); 2002. p. 9–19.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Parkash V, Domfeh A, Cohen P, Fischbach N, Pronovost M, Haines III GK, et al. Are amended surgical pathology reports getting to the correct responsible care provider? Am J Clin Pathol. 2014;142:58–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carolyn Mies MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mies, C. (2015). Communicating Effectively in Surgical Pathology. In: Nakhleh, R. (eds) Error Reduction and Prevention in Surgical Pathology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2339-7_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2339-7_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-2338-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-2339-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics