Indian Journal of Pathology and Microbiology
Home About us Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Ahead Of Print Login 
Users Online: 4934
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 55  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 180-182

Study of parameters to ensure quality control in histopathology reporting: A meta-analysis at a tertiary care center

1 Department of Pathology, Sultan Qaboos University Hospital, Muscat, Oman
2 Department of Pathology, Shaukat Khanum Cancer Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan

Correspondence Address:
Asim Qureshi
Consultant Pathologist, Sultan Qaboos University, Post Code 123, AL Khod, Muscat
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0377-4929.97857

Rights and Permissions

Context : When surgical pathology reports are dispatched to patients and clinicians, sometimes they are discovered to have errors, and it is a common practice for the pathologists to issue amended reports. Measuring the rate at which surgical pathology reports are amended can be used as a tool for assuring quality control in histopathology. Aim : The aim of this study was determine the parameters that can be used as an assessment tool to minimize errors in histopathology. Materials and Methods : This study was carried out at a major histopathology center. The duration of this study was from January 2001 through January 2011(ten years). Following parameters were looked for: Interpretational errors, permanent and frozen section correlation, intradepartmental consultation and cases sent for second opinion, cases brought in tissue committee meetings, audits, and cases discussed in hospital meetings. Results : A total of 28,1931 surgical pathology cases were signed out during the ten-year period. On these, addendums were issued on 5730 cases (2.0%). Additional report issued on 3521 (1.3%). Addendum/corrected report issued for 2209 cases, which was 0.7%, representing the true interpretational error. And out of this number, a second opinion was taken for 5980 cases, and 78 were sent abroad for second opinion. Conclusion : Review by a second pathologist is a strong tool to minimize errors in surgical pathology reporting. This may be done prior to or after the report is dispatched and the case is discussed in the hospital for treatment purposes. This analysis concludes that true interpretational error occurred only in 0.7% of cases, which is an attribute to the strong peer review in the department.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded240    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 3    

Recommend this journal