Data-Driven Development of an Institutional "Gross-Only" Policy for the Examination of Select Surgical Pathology Specimens

Cost benefit analysis and pathology review of ileostomy and colostomy specimens processed over a 20-year period

Rising healthcare costs have been linked to overtreatment and overuse of available resources. Identifying and eliminating low-value services is vital for reducing such costs. At many institutions, including ours, all ileostomy and colostomy specimens are sent for pathological evaluation. It is estimated that approximately 120,000 ileostomy/colostomy procedures are done every year, and at least 1 million patients have stomas at any given time in North America. Hence, we decided to analyze the pathological findings and cost-benefit of undertaking the pathological evaluation of these colostomy and ileostomy specimens. The pathology database of our department was searched for all ileostomy and colostomy specimens received between 2000 and 2020, resulting in a total of 2762 cases (1944 ileostomy and 818 colostomy). We performed a cost-benefit analysis and pathologic review of these cases. The results of our study show that 99.38% of these specimens did not show any significant pathological abnormality, and non-neoplastic pathologic findings accounted for 99.63% of cases. Less than 1% of our cases showed any clinically significant pathological findings. All 10 cases that showed a neoplastic or malignant diagnosis showed some abnormal finding that was appreciated at the time of gross examination. We conclude that microscopic evaluation of ileostomy and colostomy specimens incurs significant costs and provides no clear value or relevant information for patient care. The results of our study provide support for ileostomy and colostomy specimens to be triaged by gross-only pathological examination in the first instance for the vast majority of cases.

Development of an interactive web dashboard to facilitate the reexamination of pathology reports for instances of underbilling of CPT codes

Current Procedural Terminology Codes is a numerical coding system used to bill for medical procedures and services and crucially, represents a major reimbursement pathway. Given that pathology services represent a consequential source of hospital revenue, understanding instances where codes may have been misassigned or underbilled is critical. Several algorithms have been proposed that can identify improperly billed CPT codes in existing datasets of pathology reports. Estimation of the fiscal impacts of these reports requires a coder (i.e., billing staff) to review the original reports and manually code them again. As the re-assignment of codes using machine learning algorithms can be done quickly, the bottleneck in validating these reassignments is in this manual re-coding process, which can prove cumbersome. This work documents the development of a rapidly deployable dashboard for examination of reports that the original coder may have misbilled. Our dashboard features the following main components: (1) a bar plot to show the predicted probabilities for each CPT code, (2) an interpretation plot showing how each word in the report combines to form the overall prediction, and (3) a place for the user to input the CPT code they have chosen to assign. This dashboard utilizes the algorithms developed to accurately identify CPT codes to highlight the codes missed by the original coders. In order to demonstrate the function of this web application, we recruited pathologists to utilize it to highlight reports that had codes incorrectly assigned. We expect this application to accelerate the validation of re-assigned codes through facilitating rapid review of false-positive pathology reports. In the future, we will use this technology to review thousands of past cases in order to estimate the impact of underbilling has on departmental revenue.

Prioritizing Patient Safety and Minimizing Waste: Institutional Review of Cases and a Proposed Process for Designing a Surgical Pathology Gross-Only Examination Policy

OBJECTIVES

Gross-only examination policies vary widely across pathology departments. Several studies-particularly a College of American Pathologists' Q-Probes study-have looked at the variations in gross-only policies, and even more studies have addressed the (in)appropriateness of certain specimen types for gross-only examination. Few, if any, studies have tackled the important task of how to revise and safely implement a new gross-only examination protocol, especially in collaboration with clinical colleagues.

METHODS

We reviewed the grossing protocols from three anatomic pathology centers to identify common gross-only specimen types. We compiled an inclusive list of any specimen types that appeared on one or more centers' lists. We performed a retrospective review of the gross and microscopic diagnoses for those specimen types to determine if any diagnoses of significance would have been missed had that specimen been processed as a gross-only.

RESULTS

We reviewed 940 cases among 13 specimen types. For 7 specimen types, the gross diagnoses provided equivalent information to the microscopic diagnoses. For 6 specimen types, microscopic diagnoses provided clinically meaningful information beyond what was captured in the gross diagnoses.

CONCLUSIONS

To improve the value of care provided, pathology departments should conduct internal reviews and consider transitioning specimen types to gross-only when safe.