Raab, Stephen S.

Context.— In 2016, the College of American Pathologists published an evidence-based guideline to develop recommendations for interpretive diagnostic error reduction in anatomic pathology. New evidence, together with evolving practice environments and the continued adoption of digital technologies, including artificial intelligence, has prompted a review of the guideline. Objective.— To assess evidence published since the release of the original guideline and update evidence-based recommendations for the reduction of diagnostic errors. Design.— The College of American Pathologists, in collaboration with the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Subspecialty Pathology, convened a panel of experts to update the 2016 evidence-based guideline. A systematic literature review was conducted to address 4 key questions. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach, recommendations were created based on the available evidence, certainty of that evidence, and key judgments as defined in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Results.— Two strong recommendations and 4 good practice statements were established for the reduction of diagnostic error. Conclusions.— The expert panel recommends that anatomic pathologists implement procedures for the review of pathology cases to detect and correct potential interpretive errors to improve patient outcomes.

Abstract Context.—Anatomic pathology discrepancy frequencies have not been rigorously studied. Objective.—To determine the frequency of anatomic pathology discrepancies and the causes of these discrepancies. Design.—Participants in the College of American Pathologists Q-Probes program self-reported the number of anatomic pathology discrepancies in their laboratories by prospectively performing secondary review (post–sign-out) of 100 surgical pathology or cytology specimens. Reasons for the secondary review included conferences, external review, internal quality assurance policy, and physician request. Participants.—Seventy-four laboratories self-reported data. Main Outcome Measures.—Frequency of anatomic pathology discrepancy; type of discrepancy (ie, change in margin status, change in diagnosis, change in patient information, or typographic error); effect of discrepancy on patient outcome (ie, no harm, near miss, or harm); and clarity of report. Results.—The mean and median laboratory discrepancy frequencies were 6.7% and 5.1%, respectively. Forty-eight percent of all discrepancies were due to a change within the same category of interpretation (eg, 1 tumor type was changed to another tumor type). Twenty-one percent of all discrepancies were due to a change across categories of interpretation (eg, a benign diagnosis was changed to a malignant diagnosis). Although the majority of discrepancies had no effect on patient care, 5.3% had a moderate or marked effect on patient care. Conclusions.—This study establishes a mean multi-institutional discrepancy frequency (related to secondary review) of 6.7%.

Context Additional reviews of diagnostic surgical and cytology cases have been shown to detect diagnostic discrepancies. Objective To develop, through a systematic review of the literature, recommendations for the review of pathology cases to detect or prevent interpretive diagnostic errors. Design The College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center in association with the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology convened an expert panel to develop an evidence-based guideline to help define the role of case reviews in surgical pathology and cytology. A literature search was conducted to gather data on the review of cases in surgical pathology and cytology. Results The panel drafted 5 recommendations, with strong agreement from open comment period participants ranging from 87% to 93%. The recommendations are: (1) anatomic pathologists should develop procedures for the review of selected pathology cases to detect disagreements and potential interpretive errors; (2) anatomic pathologists should perform case reviews in a timely manner to avoid having a negative impact on patient care; (3) anatomic pathologists should have documented case review procedures that are relevant to their practice setting; (4) anatomic pathologists should continuously monitor and document the results of case reviews; and (5) if pathology case reviews show poor agreement within a defined case type, anatomic pathologists should take steps to improve agreement. Conclusions Evidence exists that case reviews detect errors; therefore, the expert panel recommends that anatomic pathologists develop procedures for the review of pathology cases to detect disagreements and potential interpretive errors, in order to improve the quality of patient care.

Abstract Few reports have documented the effectiveness of Lean quality improvement in changing anatomic pathology patient safety. We used Lean methods of education; hoshin kanri goal setting and culture change; kaizen events; observation of work activities, hand-offs, and pathways; A3-problem solving, metric development, and measurement; and frontline work redesign in the accessioning and gross examination areas of an anatomic pathology laboratory. We compared the pre- and post-Lean implementation proportion of near-miss events and changes made in specific work processes. In the implementation phase, we documented 29 individual A3-root cause analyses. The pre- and postimplementation proportions of process- and operator-dependent near-miss events were 5.5 and 1.8 (P < .002) and 0.6 and 0.6, respectively. We conclude that through culture change and implementation of specific work process changes, Lean implementation may improve pathology patient safety.