Document Detail

Effectiveness of random and focused review in detecting surgical pathology error.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  19019767     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Different error detection methods yield different error proportions and have variable benefits for surgical pathology divisions with limited resources. We performed a nonconcurrent cohort study at a large institution that practices subspecialty surgical pathology sign-out to compare the effectiveness and usefulness of error detection using a targeted 5% random review process and a focused review process. Pathologists reviewed 7,444 cases using a targeted 5% random review process and 380 cases using a focused review process. The numbers of errors detected by the targeted 5% random and focused review processes were 195 (2.6% of reviewed cases) and 50 (13.2%), respectively (P < .001). The numbers of major errors for the targeted 5% random and focused review processes was 27 (0.36%) and 12 (3.2%), respectively (P < .001). Focused review detects a higher proportion of errors and may be more effectively used for design of error reduction initiatives.
Stephen S Raab; Dana M Grzybicki; Laura K Mahood; Anil V Parwani; Shih-Fan Kuan; Uma N Rao
Related Documents :
12372917 - Dolichoodontoid in a pediatric patient.
11103697 - Examining the hiv/aids case management process.
21937827 - Eosinophilic pneumonia due to visceral larva migrans possibly caused by ascaris suum: a...
10814167 - Recent reviews. 56.
1641457 - The rationale and indications for equilibration in the primary dentition.
11283117 - Chronic melioidosis in a patient with cystic fibrosis.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article; Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.    
Journal Detail:
Title:  American journal of clinical pathology     Volume:  130     ISSN:  1943-7722     ISO Abbreviation:  Am. J. Clin. Pathol.     Publication Date:  2008 Dec 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2008-11-21     Completed Date:  2008-12-29     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  0370470     Medline TA:  Am J Clin Pathol     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  905-12     Citation Subset:  AIM; IM    
Department of Pathology, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, CO 80045, USA.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Diagnostic Errors*
Gastroenterology / standards
Medical Audit / methods*
Medical Errors*
Pathology, Surgical / methods,  standards*
Quality Assurance, Health Care / methods*
Random Allocation
Grant Support
HS13321-01/HS/AHRQ HHS

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Analysis of SOX9 expression in colorectal cancer.
Next Document:  Methylene blue-assisted lymph node dissection in colon specimens: a prospective, randomized study.