Cervenka, Derek J.

AbstractBackgroundTechnology has revolutionized not only direct patient care but also diagnostic care processes. This study evaluates the transition from glass‐slide microscopy to digital pathology (DP) at a multisite academic institution, using mixed methods to understand user perceptions of digitization and key productivity metrics of practice change.MethodsParticipants included dermatopathologists, pathology reporting specialists, and clinicians. Electronic surveys and individual or group interviews included questions related to technology comfort, trust in DP, and rationale for DP adoption. Case volumes and turnaround times were abstracted from the electronic health record from Qtr 4 2020 to Qtr 1 2023 (inclusive). Data were analyzed descriptively, while interviews were analyzed using methods of content analysis.ResultsThirty‐four staff completed surveys and 22 participated in an interview. Case volumes and diagnostic turnaround time did not differ across the institution during or after implementation timelines (p = 0.084; p = 0.133, respectively). 82.5% (28/34) of staff agreed that DP improved the sign‐out experience, with accessibility, ergonomics, and annotation features described as key factors. Clinicians reported positive perspectives of DP impact on patient safety and interdisciplinary collaboration.ConclusionsOur study demonstrates that DP has a high acceptance rate, does not adversely impact productivity, and may improve patient safety and care collaboration.

AbstractBackgroundCertain autoimmune bullous dermatoses are mediated by autoantibodies of the IgG4 subclass. We determined the diagnostic impact of adding IgG4 to our conventional direct immunofluorescence (DIF) panel.MethodsFor all cases submitted to our referral laboratory for DIF over 1 month (n = 630), we performed IgG4 testing and collected consecutive biopsy specimens showing definite or indeterminate linear or cell‐surface deposition of IgG, IgG4, and/or C3. On retrospective blinded review, we classified the pattern and whether the findings were definite, indeterminate, or negative. When present, substantial background staining was recorded.ResultsSeventy DIF specimens met the inclusion criteria. Of 22 (31.4%) specimens equivocal for linear or cell‐surface deposition, 9 (40.9%) had definitive IgG4 findings, either linear (3 of 14 equivocal linear cases; 21.4%) or cell‐surface (6 of 8 equivocal cell‐surface cases; 75.0%). Background deposition was substantial in 14 cases (20.0%) for IgG but in none for C3 or IgG4.ConclusionIgG4 allowed the classification of over 40% of DIF cases that were otherwise equivocal by IgG and C3. IgG4 staining showed lower levels of non‐specific background staining than IgG or C3. IgG4 appears to contribute most value in cases with cell‐surface deposition or with equivocal linear IgG deposition and negative C3 results.