Meier, Frederick A.

Abstract Objectives.—To establish the rates with which reference laboratories resolve inquiries telephoned to them from primary laboratories and to identify reference laboratory practices associated with higher rates of inquiry resolution. Design and Participants.—For 2 months, or until 50 contacts had occurred, 545 primary laboratories participating in the College of American Pathologists Q-Probes laboratory quality improvement program prospectively documented and characterized telephone inquiries they made to a reference laboratory of their choice. Participants also cataloged their own laboratory's demographic and practice characteristics and their reference laboratory's customer service characteristics. Main Outcome Measure.—Rates with which reference laboratories resolved telephone inquiries. Results.—Participants characterized 11 031 (78.7%) of 14 017 telephone inquiries as resolved by the reference laboratories. Ranked according to inquiry resolution rates, primary laboratories in the 90th percentile characterized reference laboratories as resolving 100% of their inquiries; those in the 10th percentile characterized reference laboratories as resolving only 54.2% of their inquiries. The rate of resolved inquiries was significantly higher (P = .0047) for participants using reference laboratories with 24-hour customer service than it was for participants using reference laboratories with less than 24-hour service. Most primary laboratories (80.9%) chose to monitor 1 of 11 national reference laboratories; in this subset, median rates of inquiry resolution ranged from 90.2% to 55.0% (P < .0001), despite no significant variation in other measured customer service characteristics. Conclusions.—Primary laboratories experience significant differences in the rates with which reference laboratories resolve telephone inquiries. The performance benchmark for reference laboratories is resolution of at least 90% of telephone inquiries from primary laboratory customers.

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.

Context.— The Q-Tracks program, created in 1999, is a quality monitoring subscription service offered by the College of American Pathologists. Objective.— To establish benchmarks in quality metrics, monitor changes in performance over time, and identify practice characteristics associated with better performance. Design.— The Q-Tracks program provides ongoing study of multiple metrics offered in most laboratory disciplines. The design enables measuring the effects of process changes and comparisons with other participating laboratories. Each laboratory Q-Tracks monitor has a primary quality indicator and additional secondary indicators. Results.— To date, 19 Q-Tracks monitors have been offered, with 12 currently active monitors. Q-Tracks are primarily conducted in hospital-based laboratories in the United States, Canada, and 21 other countries. Common to most Q-Tracks monitors is a demonstration of performance improvement by subscribers with long-term participation. This finding was seen in preanalytic, turnaround time, and postanalytic measures. Q-Tracks monitors contribute to the overall demonstration and improvement of laboratory and hospital quality because they address core quality measures for the College of American Pathologists Laboratory Accreditation Program and multiple Joint Commission National Patient Safety Goals. Conclusions.— The Q-Tracks program has established multiple benchmarks in most disciplines of the laboratory and has demonstrated significant performance improvement in benchmarks and individual laboratories over time.

Context .—The rate of surgical pathology report defects is an indicator of quality and it affects clinician satisfaction. Objective .—To establish benchmarks for defect rates and defect fractions through a large, multi-institutional prospective application of standard taxonomy. Design .—Participants in a 2011 Q-Probes study of the College of American Pathologists prospectively reviewed all surgical pathology reports that underwent changes to correct defects and reported details regarding the defects. Results .—Seventy-three institutions reported 1688 report defects discovered in 360 218 accessioned cases, for an aggregate defect rate of 4.7 per 1000 cases. Median institutional defect rate was 5.7 per 1000 (10th to 90th percentile range, 13.5–0.9). Defect rates were higher in institutions with a pathology training program (8.5 versus 5.0 per 1000, P = .01) and when a set percentage of cases were reviewed after sign-out (median, 6.7 versus 3.8 per 1000, P = .10). Defect types were as follows: 14.6% misinterpretations, 13.3% misidentifications, 13.7% specimen defects, and 58.4% other report defects. Overall, defects were most often detected by pathologists (47.4%), followed by clinicians (22.0%). Misinterpretations and specimen defects were most often detected by pathologists (73.5% and 82.7% respectively, P < .001), while misidentifications were most often discovered by clinicians (44.6%, P < .001). Misidentification rates were lower when all malignancies were reviewed by a second pathologist before sign-out (0.0 versus 0.6 per 1000, P < .001), and specimen defect rates were lower when intradepartmental review of difficult cases was conducted after sign-out (0.0 versus 0.4 per 1000, P = .02). Conclusion .—This study provides benchmarking data on report defects and defect fractions using standardized taxonomy.