Second opinion of anatomical pathology: a complex issue not easily reduced to matters of right and wrong.

[1]  R. C. Ulirsch,et al.  Quality assurance of histopathologic diagnoses: a prospective audit of three thousand cases. , 1984, American journal of clinical pathology.

[2]  R. Kempson,et al.  Consultations in surgical pathology. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. , 1994, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[3]  R. Kempson,et al.  Consultations in surgical pathology , 1993 .

[4]  D. Troxel,et al.  Problem Areas in Pathology Practice Uncovered by a Review of Malpractice Claims , 1994, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[5]  A. C. Lind,et al.  Prospective peer review in surgical pathology. , 1995, American journal of clinical pathology.

[6]  A. Abt,et al.  The effect of interinstitution anatomic pathology consultation on patient care. , 1995, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[7]  P. Walsh,et al.  Clinical and cost impact of second-opinion pathology. Review of prostate biopsies prior to radical prostatectomy. , 1996, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[8]  T A Brennan,et al.  Relation between negligent adverse events and the outcomes of medical-malpractice litigation. , 1996, The New England journal of medicine.

[9]  R. Nakhleh,et al.  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. , 1998, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[10]  J. Epstein,et al.  Mandatory second opinion surgical pathology at a large referral hospital , 1999, Cancer.

[11]  J. Epstein,et al.  Consensus conference on second opinions in diagnostic anatomic pathology. Who, What, and When. , 2000, American journal of clinical pathology.

[12]  L. Layfield,et al.  Prevalence of inter-institutional anatomic pathology slide review: a survey of current practice. , 2000, The American journal of surgical pathology.