[Histonet] Re: Quality assurance program for pathologists
rsrichmond <@t> gmail.com
Sat Jan 7 12:40:26 CST 2012
Diana McCaig (where?) asks: "Is anyone willing to share with me their
program for pathologists?"
Glad to know you're in charge of pathologists. (Also glad I'm nearly
73 years old, though not yet retired.)
I've worked in a few programs that did a 10% review of cases. If you
go this route, don't choose the cases at random, but ask the
pathologists to designate the cases as they do the day's work -
they'll catch a lot more problems that way. I've worked in a single
practice that did 100% second-pathologist review (before the case was
released), and I thought that was excessive.
Pathologists should be encouraged to document their internal
consultations - I mean when you pass a slide to the guy at the next
microscope and ask him "from the ear of a 70 year old man - do you
think there's enough here to call this a basal cell carcinoma?" Such
cases should be documented in a comment - I say "Dr. John Doe has seen
this material and concurs." Such cases are legitimately considered
part of a 10% review policy. I've worked in one large and highly
competent practice that documented internal consultation very
meticulously, and one of their QA guidelines was that 2.8% of their
cases document internal consultation.
More information about the Histonet