Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Comparative Study of the Perspectives of General and Oral and Maxillofacial Pathologists about the Rate and Value of Second Referral in Assessment of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathologic Lesions

  • Published:
Journal of Cancer Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The main purpose in the practice of pathology is to provide an accurate diagnosis. Second referral and reassessment by a second pathologist significantly cause diagnostic errors, help to make an accurate diagnosis, and improve patient management. This study was aimed to assess the general perspectives of general and oral and maxillofacial pathologists in Iran on second referrals. In this cross-sectional, descriptive-analytical study, a 20-item questionnaire on second referrals was used to assess the general and oral and maxillofacial pathologists’ perspective in Iran. The obtained data were analyzed by chi-square and Mann-Whitney tests (α = 0.05). A total of 64 questionnaires from general and 45 questionnaires from oral and maxillofacial pathologists were collected. The findings showed 70.9% of pathologists were in favor of seeking a second opinion when faced with diagnostic challenges. Significant differences were found between the oral and general pathologists in terms of the most challenging oral and maxillofacial lesions (p value < 0.001). In total, 74.8% of pathologists suggested second opinion to be useful and productive. Both groups of pathologists approved of the second referral. However, this pattern is still different, and it is possible to improve the referral rate among both groups and to enhance the knowledge of general pathologists about second referral to oral and maxillofacial pathologists.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ahmed Z, Yaqoob N, Muzaffar S, Kayani N, Pervez S, Hasan SH (2004) Diagnostic surgical pathology: the importance of second opinion in a developing country. J Pak Med Assoc 54(6):306

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kronz JD, Westra WH (2005) The role of second opinion pathology in the management of lesions of the head and neck. Curr Opin in Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 13(2):81–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS. 2000.To err is human:building a safer health system: National Academies Pre 6–34

  4. Maria S, Kamath VV, Satelur KP (2013) Second referrals in oral pathology: how common and how useful are these? International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology 4(2):12–17

    Google Scholar 

  5. Abt AB, Abt LG, Olt GJ (1995) The effect of interinstitution anatomic pathology consultation on patient care. Arch Pathol Lab Med 119(6):514–517

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Westra WH, Kronz JD, Eisele DW (2002) The impact of second opinion surgical pathology on the practice of head and neck surgery: a decade experience at a large referral hospital. Head & neck 1;24(7):684–693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Renshaw AA, Gould EW (2006) Measuring the value of review of pathology material by a second pathologist. Am J Clin Pathol 125(5):737–739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Woolgar JA, Triantafyllou A, Thompson LD, Hunt JL, Lewis JS Jr, Williams MD et al (2014) Double reporting and second opinion in head and neck pathology. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 271(5):847–854

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Martin SG, Shwartz M, Whalen BJ, D'Arpa D, Ljung GM, Thorne JH et al (1982) Impact of a mandatory second-opinion program on medicaid surgery rates. Med Care 20(1):21–45

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Jones K, Jordan RC (2010) Patterns of second-opinion diagnosis in oral and maxillofacial pathology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 109(6):865–869

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the pathologists for their kind participation in this project. This manuscript was extracted from a dental thesis in Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Dental School.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dental Implants Research Center, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

    Sayed Mohammad Razavi & Neda Kargahi

  2. School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

    Alireza Liaghatdar

Authors
  1. Sayed Mohammad Razavi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alireza Liaghatdar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Neda Kargahi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neda Kargahi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

All data recorded from general and oral and maxillofacial pathologists in the questionnaires were kept confidential and ethical considerations were taken into account.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Razavi, S.M., Liaghatdar, A. & Kargahi, N. A Comparative Study of the Perspectives of General and Oral and Maxillofacial Pathologists about the Rate and Value of Second Referral in Assessment of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathologic Lesions. J Canc Educ 33, 991–995 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-017-1185-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-017-1185-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation