The Feasibility of Computer-Aided Monitoring of the Workflow in Surgical Pathology: A Five-Year Experience

To explore the feasibility of computer-aided monitoring of the workflow in surgical pathology. We collected 5-year data about computer-aided monitoring of the workflow in surgical pathology and analyzed the four subprocesses in the surgical pathologic process: 1) from arranging surgical pathology examination to receipt of the examination sheet and sample by the laboratory; 2) from receipt of the sample to issuance of the pathology report; 3) from issuance of the pathology report to automatic computer forwarding of positive pathology reports by e-mail to the physician who ordered the examination; 4) from receipt of the positive report by the physician to his/her response of acknowledging receipt. A total 115,648 surgical pathological cases were reviewed in this study. The overdue rate of delivery of samples was 0.82 %. The most common cause (62.92 %) of overdue delivery was clinicians in the outpatient department arranging for the examination more than 1 day in advance of specimen collection. The cumulative rates of report completion within 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 work days were 12.82 %, 53.56 %, 86.42 %, 95.90 % and 98.85 %, respectively. The rate of overdue reporting was 1.15 % over the 5-year study. The most common cause (56.30 %) of overdue reporting was case complexity. The learning time for adapting this subprocess of report issuance was 7 months. There were 12,151 positive reports (10.51 % of all cases) that required automatic computer forwarding to the physicians’ e-mail boxes. A total of 113 cases (0.93 %) failed in automatic computer forwarding during the 5-year period. The learning time for constructing a stable automatic computer forwarding system was 2.5 years. Of the 12,038 reports successfully forwarded, 10,107 (83.96 %) were received by physicians and acknowledged by automated receipt within 120 h, and the other 1,931 (16.04 %) showed no response within 120 h. The major reason for an overdue reply was that the physicians did not check their e-mail boxes (94.89 %). We used a preliminary computer-aided system to monitor the workflow in surgical pathology. This system might be used as one of the methods of quality assurance in surgical pathology.

[1]  M. Trotter,et al.  Intraoperative consultation/final diagnosis correlation: relationship to tissue type and pathologic process. , 2009, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[2]  Raouf E Nakhleh,et al.  Quality in surgical pathology communication and reporting. , 2011, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[3]  R. Zarbo,et al.  Interinstitutional comparison of surgical biopsy diagnosis turnaround time: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 5384 surgical biopsies in 157 small hospitals. , 1998, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[4]  R. Sirota,et al.  Derivation of a new hematopoietic cell line with endothelial features from a patient with transformed myeloproliferative syndrome , 2000, Cancer.

[5]  S S Cross,et al.  Assessment of specimen fixation in a surgical pathology service. , 1992, Journal of clinical pathology.

[6]  Christine G Holzmueller,et al.  Developing and Pilot Testing Practical Measures of Preanalytic Surgical Specimen Identification Defects , 2013, American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality.

[7]  Andrew A Renshaw,et al.  Measuring the value of review of pathology material by a second pathologist. , 2006, American journal of clinical pathology.

[8]  Richard J Zarbo,et al.  Determining customer satisfaction in anatomic pathology. , 2009, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[9]  P J Howanitz,et al.  Interinstitutional comparison of frozen-section consultation. A College of American Pathologists Q-Probe study of 79,647 consultations in 297 North American institutions. , 1991, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[10]  D. Longo,et al.  The long road to patient safety: a status report on patient safety systems. , 2005, JAMA.

[11]  R. Nakhleh,et al.  Surgical pathology specimen identification and accessioning: A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Study of 1 004 115 cases from 417 institutions. , 1996, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[12]  Michael J Becich,et al.  Database construction for improving patient safety by examining pathology errors. , 2005, American journal of clinical pathology.

[13]  Robin T. Vollmer Analysis of Turnaround Times in Pathology , 2006 .

[14]  A. Cardesa,et al.  Evaluation of turnaround times as a component of quality assurance in surgical pathology. , 1998, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[15]  Richard J. Zarbo,et al.  Customer Satisfaction in Anatomic Pathology , 2009 .

[16]  Robin T Vollmer Analysis of turnaround times in pathology: an approach using failure time analysis. , 2006, American journal of clinical pathology.

[17]  Jeannette Guarner,et al.  Factors that impact turnaround time of surgical pathology specimens in an academic institution. , 2012, Human pathology.

[18]  B. D. De Young,et al.  A Preliminary Diagnosis Service Provides Prospective Blinded Dual-Review of All General Surgical Pathology Cases in an Academic Practice , 2005, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[19]  Frederick A Meier,et al.  Anatomic pathology and patient safety: it's not an error: it's a diagnostic misadventure! , 2008, American journal of clinical pathology.

[20]  J C Kazzi,et al.  Turnaround times for reports on uncomplicated biopsies in five major anatomical pathology laboratories in NSW, Australia. , 1999, Pathology.

[21]  R. Zarbo,et al.  Interinstitutional comparison of frozen section consultations. A college of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 90,538 cases in 461 institutions. , 1996, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[22]  R. Nakhleh,et al.  What is quality in surgical pathology? , 2006, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[23]  Frederick A Meier,et al.  Surgical pathology case reviews before sign-out: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 45 laboratories. , 2010, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[24]  P J Howanitz,et al.  Intralaboratory timeliness of surgical pathology reports. Results of two College of American Pathologists Q-Probes studies of biopsies and complex specimens. , 1996, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[25]  Richard J Zarbo,et al.  Customer satisfaction in anatomic pathology. A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 3065 physician surveys from 94 laboratories. , 2003, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[26]  Stephen S. Raab,et al.  Quality in Cancer Diagnosis , 2010, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[27]  Peter J Pronovost,et al.  Surgical specimen identification errors: a new measure of quality in surgical care. , 2007, Surgery.