Improving the creation and reporting of structured findings during digital pathology review

Background: Today, pathology reporting consists of many separate tasks, carried out by multiple people. Common tasks include dictation during case review, transcription, verification of the transcription, report distribution, and report the key findings to follow-up registries. Introduction of digital workstations makes it possible to remove some of these tasks and simplify others. This study describes the work presented at the Nordic Symposium on Digital Pathology 2015, in Linköping, Sweden. Methods: We explored the possibility to have a digital tool that simplifies image review by assisting note-taking, and with minimal extra effort, populates a structured report. Thus, our prototype sees reporting as an activity interleaved with image review rather than a separate final step. We created an interface to collect, sort, and display findings for the most common reporting needs, such as tumor size, grading, and scoring. Results: The interface was designed to reduce the need to retain partial findings in the head or on paper, while at the same time be structured enough to support automatic extraction of key findings for follow-up registry reporting. The final prototype was evaluated with two pathologists, diagnosing complicated partial mastectomy cases. The pathologists experienced that the prototype aided them during the review and that it created a better overall workflow. Conclusions: These results show that it is feasible to simplify the reporting tasks in a way that is not distracting, while at the same time being able to automatically extract the key findings. This simplification is possible due to the realization that the structured format needed for automatic extraction of data can be used to offload the pathologists′ working memory during the diagnostic review.

[1]  Matthew Mossanen,et al.  Surgical pathology and the patient: a systematic review evaluating the primary audience of pathology reports. , 2014, Human pathology.

[2]  J. Norstein,et al.  Structured electronic template for histopathology reports on colorectal carcinomas: a joint project by the Cancer Registry of Norway and the Norwegian Society for Pathology. , 2008, Human pathology.

[3]  Charles E. Kahn Incorporating intelligence into structured radiology reports , 2014, Medical Imaging.

[4]  Roy A. Ruddle,et al.  Diagnosis at the microscope: a workplace study of histopathology , 2012, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[5]  Charlotte P. Lee,et al.  Boundary Negotiating Artifacts: Unbinding the Routine of Boundary Objects and Embracing Chaos in Collaborative Work , 2007, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[6]  Navid Farahani,et al.  whole slide imaging in pathology: advantages, limitations, and emerging perspectives , 2015 .

[7]  Rebecca Randell,et al.  Working at the microscope: analysis of the activities involved in diagnostic pathology , 2012, Histopathology.

[8]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  The eyes have it: a task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations , 1996, Proceedings 1996 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages.

[9]  Zeljko Obrenovic,et al.  Design-based research: what we learn when we engage in design of interactive systems , 2011, INTR.

[10]  R. K. Castellano,et al.  Interactions , 2022, What Is a Quantum Field Theory?.

[11]  Elizabeth A. Krupinski,et al.  Optimizing the pathology workstation “cockpit”: Challenges and solutions , 2010, Journal of pathology informatics.

[12]  Jeffrey L. Fine 21st century workflow: A proposal , 2014, Journal of pathology informatics.

[13]  John R. Gilbertson,et al.  Computer aided diagnostic tools aim to empower rather than replace pathologists: Lessons learned from computational chess , 2011, Journal of pathology informatics.

[14]  Reporting in digital pathology:increasing efficiency and accuracy using structured reporting , 2015 .

[15]  R. Bjugn,et al.  Structured electronic template for histopathology reporting on colorectal carcinoma resections: five-year follow-up shows sustainable long-term quality improvement. , 2012, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[16]  David L Weiss,et al.  Structured reporting: patient care enhancement or productivity nightmare? , 2008, Radiology.