A questionnaire-based survey of errors in diagnostic histopathology throughout the United Kingdom

Specimen Identification Errors in Breast Biopsies: Age Matters. Report of Two Near-Miss Events and Review of the Literature

The consequences of patient identification errors due to specimen mislabeling can be deleterious. We describe two near-miss events involving mislabeled breast specimens from two patients who sought treatment at our institution. In both cases, microscopic review of the slides identified inconsistencies between the histologic findings and patient age, unveiling specimen identification errors. By correlating the clinical information with the microscopic findings, we identified mistakes that had occurred at the time of specimen accessioning at the original laboratories. In both cases, thanks to a timely reassignment of the specimens, the patients suffered no harm. These cases highlight the importance of routine clinical and pathologic correlation as a critical component of quality assurance and patient safety. A review of possible specimen identification errors in the anatomic pathology setting is presented.

Validation of digital pathology imaging for primary histopathological diagnosis

AIMS

Digital pathology (DP) offers advantages over glass slide microscopy (GS), but data demonstrating a statistically valid equivalent (i.e. non-inferior) performance of DP against GS are required to permit its use in diagnosis. The aim of this study is to provide evidence of non-inferiority.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Seventeen pathologists re-reported 3017 cases by DP. Of these, 1009 were re-reported by the same pathologist, and 2008 by a different pathologist. Re-examination of 10 138 scanned slides (2.22 terabytes) produced 72 variances between GS and DP reports, including 21 clinically significant variances. Ground truth lay with GS in 12 cases and with DP in nine cases. These results are within the 95% confidence interval for existing intraobserver and interobserver variability, proving that DP is non-inferior to GS. In three cases, the digital platform was deemed to be responsible for the variance, including a gastric biopsy, where Helicobacter pylori only became visible on slides scanned at the ×60 setting, and a bronchial biopsy and penile biopsy, where dysplasia was reported on DP but was not present on GS.

CONCLUSIONS

This is one of the largest studies proving that DP is equivalent to GS for the diagnosis of histopathology specimens. Error rates are similar in both platforms, although some problems e.g. detection of bacteria, are predictable.

Avoiding the major complication of ophthalmic pathology: misdiagnosis. A review of three common diagnostic challenges

Diagnostic errors in ophthalmic pathology are not uncommon. Pathology is a very subjective specialty with several biases dependent on such factors as training, experience, practice patterns, personal anecdotes, and inevitable human error. In addition to these factors, there are many cases where difficulty in diagnosis lies in differentiating between two very closely related, or similar appearing, entities that may have vastly different prognostic consequences. In this paper, we review three challenging areas wherein diagnostic dilemmas may occur. We outline some of the lessons we have learned in arriving at a correct diagnosis, which includes an admission of one's own limitations requiring consultation with other pathology subspecialists, and the use of immunohistochemistry.

Diagnosing musculoskeletal tumours

In 1993 we became aware of a worrying increase in apparent errors in the histopathological diagnosis of musculoskeletal tumours in our Unit. As a result all cases seen over the past 8 years were reviewed by an independent panel. Of the 1996 cases reviewed there was an error in 87. In 54 cases (2.7%) this had led to some significant change in the active management of the patient. The main areas where errors arose were in those very cases where clinical and radiological features were not helpful in confirming or refuting the diagnosis. The incidence of errors rose with the passage of time, possibly related to a deterioration in the pathologist's health. The error rate in diagnosing bone tumours in previously published series ranges from 9 to 40%. To ensure as accurate a rate of diagnosis as possible multidisciplinary working and regular audit are essential.

Surgical specimen identification errors: a new measure of quality in surgical care

BACKGROUND

Communication errors are the primary factor contributing to all types of sentinel events including those involving surgical patients. One type of communication error is mislabeled specimens. The extent to which these errors occur is poorly quantified. We designed a study to measure the incidence and type of specimen identification errors in the surgical patient population.

METHODS

We performed a prospective cohort study that included all patients who underwent surgery in an outpatient clinic or hospital operating room and for whom a pathology specimen was sent to the laboratory. The study took place during a 6-month period (October 2004 to April 2005) at an urban, academic medical center. The study's main end-points were the incidence and type of specimen labeling errors in the hospital operating room and the outpatient clinic. The specimen was the unit of analysis. All specimens were screened for "identification errors," which, for the purposes of this study, were defined as any discrepancy between information on the specimen requisition form and the accompanying labeled specimen received in the laboratory. Errors were stratified by the type of identification error, source, location, and type of procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 21,351 surgical specimens were included in the analysis. There were 91 (4.3/1000) surgical specimen identification errors (18, specimen not labeled; 16, empty container; 16, laterality incorrect; 14, incorrect tissue site; 11, incorrect patient; 9, no patient name; and 7, no tissue site). Identification errors occurred in 0.512% of specimens originating from an outpatient clinic (53/10,354 specimens) and 0.346% of specimens originating from an operating room (38/10,997 specimens). Procedures involving the breast were the most common type to involve an identification error (breast = 11, skin = 10, colon = 8); in addition, 59.3% (54/91) of errors were associated with a biopsy procedure. Follow-up was complete in all cases found to have an identification error.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical specimen identification errors are common and pose important risks to all patients. In our study, these events occurred in 4.3 per 1000 surgical specimens or an annualized rate of occurrence of 182 mislabeled specimens per year. Given the frequency with which these errors occur and their potential effect on patients, the rate of surgical specimen identification errors may be an important measure of patient safety. Strategies to reduce the rate of these errors should be a research priority.

Diagnostic ‘errors’ in anatomical pathology: relevance to Australian laboratories

Failure to recognise that anatomical pathology diagnosis is a process of cognitive interpretation of the morphological features present in a small tissue sample has led to the public misperception that the process is infallible. The absence of a universally accepted definition of diagnostic error makes comparison of error rates impossible and one large study of laboratories in the United States shows a significant error rate of about 5%, most of which have no major impact on patient management. A recent review of the work of one pathologist in New South Wales confirms a lack of appreciation in medical administration that variable diagnostic thresholds result in an inherent fallibility of anatomical pathology diagnoses. The outcome of the review emphasises the need to educate both public and non-pathology colleagues of the nature of our work and brings into consideration the requirement to establish baseline error rates for Australian laboratories and the role of the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (RCPA) in developing fair and unbiased protocols for review of diagnostic errors. The responsibility of ensuring that diagnostic error rates are kept to the minimum is a shared one. Area health services must play their part by seeking to ensure that pathologists in any laboratory are not overworked and have adequate support and back-up from pathologists with expertise in specialised areas. It has been clearly enunciated by the Royal College of Pathologists in the United Kingdom that it is not safe for any histopathology service to be operated single-handedly by one histopathologist. Service managers and clinicians have to understand that country pathologists cannot provide the full range and depth of pathology expertise in the many clinical subspecialty areas that are often practised in non-metropolitan areas. Attending clinicians share the responsibility of accepting proffered pathology diagnoses only if it conforms to the clinical context. Pathology laboratories must continue to develop and maintain best-practice protocols and conduct periodic reviews of diagnosis, cytology-histology concordance, frozen section/permanent section correlations, conference reviews, intra and interdepartmental consultations, participate in external quality assurance programs and maintain ongoing education for all laboratory staff.

Clinical impact and frequency of anatomic pathology errors in cancer diagnoses

BACKGROUND

To the authors' knowledge, the frequency and clinical impact of errors in the anatomic pathology diagnosis of cancer have been poorly characterized to date.

METHODS

The authors examined errors in patients who underwent anatomic pathology tests to determine the presence or absence of cancer or precancerous lesions in four hospitals. They analyzed 1 year of retrospective errors detected through a standardized cytologic-histologic correlation process (in which patient same-site cytologic and histologic specimens were compared). Medical record reviews were performed to determine patient outcomes. The authors also measured the institutional frequency, cause (i.e., pathologist interpretation or sampling), and clinical impact of diagnostic cancer errors.

RESULTS

The frequency of errors in cancer diagnosis was found to be dependent on the institution (P < 0.001) and ranged from 1.79-9.42% and from 4.87-11.8% of all correlated gynecologic and nongynecologic cases, respectively. A statistically significant association was found between institution and error cause (P < 0.001); the cause of errors resulting from pathologic misinterpretation ranged from 5.0-50.7% (the remainder were due to clinical sampling). A statistically significant association was found between institution and assignment of the clinical impact of error (P < 0.001); the aggregated data demonstrated that for gynecologic and nongynecologic errors, 45% and 39%, respectively, were associated with harm. The pairwise kappa statistic for interobserver agreement on cause of error ranged from 0.118-0.737.

CONCLUSIONS

Errors in cancer diagnosis are reported to occur in up to 11.8% of all reviewed cytologic-histologic specimen pairs. To the authors' knowledge, little agreement exists regarding whether pathology errors are secondary to misinterpretation or poor clinical sampling of tissues and whether pathology errors result in serious harm.

Patient safety in anatomic pathology: measuring discrepancy frequencies and causes

CONTEXT

Anatomic pathology discrepancy frequencies have not been rigorously studied.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the frequency of anatomic pathology discrepancies and the causes of these discrepancies.

DESIGN

Participants in the College of American Pathologists Q-Probes program self-reported the number of anatomic pathology discrepancies in their laboratories by prospectively performing secondary review (post-sign-out) of 100 surgical pathology or cytology specimens. Reasons for the secondary review included conferences, external review, internal quality assurance policy, and physician request.

PARTICIPANTS

Seventy-four laboratories self-reported data.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Frequency of anatomic pathology discrepancy; type of discrepancy (ie, change in margin status, change in diagnosis, change in patient information, or typographic error); effect of discrepancy on patient outcome (ie, no harm, near miss, or harm); and clarity of report.

RESULTS

The mean and median laboratory discrepancy frequencies were 6.7% and 5.1%, respectively. Forty-eight percent of all discrepancies were due to a change within the same category of interpretation (eg, 1 tumor type was changed to another tumor type). Twenty-one percent of all discrepancies were due to a change across categories of interpretation (eg, a benign diagnosis was changed to a malignant diagnosis). Although the majority of discrepancies had no effect on patient care, 5.3% had a moderate or marked effect on patient care.Conclusions.-This study establishes a mean multi-institutional discrepancy frequency (related to secondary review) of 6.7%.

Error Detection in Anatomic Pathology

Objectives.—To define the magnitude of error occurring in anatomic pathology, to propose a scheme to classify such errors so their influence on clinical outcomes can be evaluated, and to identify quality assurance procedures able to reduce the frequency of errors.

Design.—(a) Peer-reviewed literature search via PubMed for studies from single institutions and multi-institutional College of American Pathologists Q-Probes studies of anatomic pathology error detection and prevention practices; (b) structured evaluation of defects in surgical pathology reports uncovered in the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine of the Henry Ford Health System in 2001–2003, using a newly validated error taxonomy scheme; and (c) comparative review of anatomic pathology quality assurance procedures proposed to reduce error.

Results.—Marked differences in both definitions of error and pathology practice make comparison of error detection and prevention procedures among publications from individual institutions impossible. Q-Probes studies further suggest that observer redundancy reduces diagnostic variation and interpretive error, which ranges from 1.2 to 50 errors per 1000 cases; however, it is unclear which forms of such redundancy are the most efficient in uncovering diagnostic error. The proposed error taxonomy tested has shown a very good interobserver agreement of 91.4% (κ = 0.8780; 95% confidence limit, 0.8416–0.9144), when applied to amended reports, and suggests a distribution of errors among identification, specimen, interpretation, and reporting variables.

Conclusions.—Presently, there are no standardized tools for defining error in anatomic pathology, so it cannot be reliably measured nor can its clinical impact be assessed. The authors propose a standardized error classification that would permit measurement of error frequencies, clinical impact of errors, and the effect of error reduction and prevention efforts. In particular, the value of double-reading, case conferences, and consultations (the traditional triad of error control in anatomic pathology) awaits objective assessment.

Anatomic Pathology Databases and Patient Safety

Context.—The utility of anatomic pathology discrepancies has not been rigorously studied.

Objective.—To outline how databases may be used to study anatomic pathology patient safety.

Design.—The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded the creation of a national anatomic pathology errors database to establish benchmarks for error frequency. The database is used to track more frequent errors and errors that result in more serious harm, in order to design quality improvement interventions intended to reduce these types of errors. In the first year of funding, 4 institutions (University of Pittsburgh, Henry Ford Hospital, University of Iowa, and Western Pennsylvania Hospital) reported cytologic-histologic correlation error data after standardizing correlation methods. Root cause analysis was performed to determine sources of error, and error reduction plans were implemented.

Participants.—Four institutions self-reported anatomic pathology error data.

Main Outcome Measures.—Frequency of cytologic-histologic correlation error, case type, cause of error (sampling or interpretation), and effect of error on patient outcome (ie, no harm, near miss, and harm).

Results.—The institutional gynecologic cytologic-histologic correlation error frequency ranged from 0.17% to 0.63%, using the denominator of all Papanicolaou tests. Based on the nongynecologic cytologic-histologic correlation data, the specimen sites with the highest discrepancy frequency (by project site) were lung (ranging from 16.5% to 62.3% of all errors) and urinary bladder (ranging from 4.4% to 25.0%). Most errors detected by the gynecologic cytologic-histologic correlation process were no-harm events (ranging from 10.7% to 43.2% by project site). Root cause analysis identified sources of error on both the clinical and pathology sides of the process, and error intervention programs are currently being implemented to improve patient safety.

Conclusions.—A multi-institutional anatomic pathology error database may be used to benchmark practices and target specific high-frequency errors or errors with high clinical impact. These error reduction programs have national import.

Improving patient safety by examining pathology errors

A considerable void exists in the information available regarding anatomic pathology diagnostic errors and their impact on clinical outcomes. To fill this void and improve patient safety, four institutional pathology departments (University of Pittsburgh, Western Pennsylvania Hospital, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, and Henry Ford Hospital System) have proposed the development of a voluntary, Web-based, multi-institutional database for the collection and analysis of diagnostic errors. These institutions intend to use these data proactively to implement internal changes in pathology practice and to measure the effect of such changes on errors and clinical outcomes. They believe that the successful implementation of this project will result in the study of other types of diagnostic pathology error and the expansion to national participation. The project will involve the collection of multi-institutional anatomic pathology diagnostic errors in a large database that will facilitate a more detailed analysis of these errors, including their effect on patient outcomes. Participating institutions will perform root cause analysis for diagnostic errors and plan and execute appropriate process changes aimed at error reduction. The success of these interventions will be tracked through analysis of postintervention error data collected in the database. Based on their preliminary studies, these institutions proposed the following specific aims: Specific aim #1: To use a Web-based database to collect diagnostic errors detected by cytologic histologic correlation and by second-pathologist review of conference cases. Specific aim #2: To analyze the collected error data quantitatively and generate quality performance reports that are useful for institutional quality improvement programs. Specific aim #3: To plan and implement interventions to reduce errors and improve clinical outcomes, based on information derived from root cause analysis of diagnostic errors. Specific aim #4: To assess the success of implemented interventions by quantitative measure of postinterventional errors and clinical outcomes and by qualitative assessment by project participants. Funding for this project was approved by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality in September 2002, and data collection and analysis are ongoing. Over 5000 errors have been collected in the database, and the clinical outcomes of these errors have been tracked. At a national meeting in November 2003, root cause analysis was performed to determine causes of errors. The findings of these root cause analyses have been presented at national pathology meetings and are currently being published.

The clinical impact of expert pathological review on lymphoma management: a regional experience

The All Wales Lymphoma Panel (AWLP) was established in January 1998 to provide a central expert pathological review service for district general hospital pathologists. A discordance rate of 20% between the submitted and reviewed diagnosis has previously been identified. It has not been known whether this change in diagnosis affects clinical management. Ninety-nine patients whose diagnosis was changed as a result of central pathological review are presented. Between January 1998 and August 2000, 125 of 745 (17%) specimens submitted for AWLP review had a consequent change in pathological diagnosis. Of these 125 specimens, 99 (79%) complete case notes were recovered. In all 99 cases, a hypothetical management plan was generated using collected data, clinical protocols and the submitted pathological diagnosis. These plans were compared with the actual management patients received based on the reviewed diagnosis proffered by the AWLP. Forty-six of 99 (46%) cases had a change in management as a result of central pathological review. Overall, management was changed in 8% of cases referred for central pathological review. In conclusion, expert central pathological review has a direct effect on patient management.

Errors in histopathology reporting: detection and avoidance

The histopathological diagnosis is the bedrock of modern oncology, and plays a major role in the treatment of many other types of disease. Errors in these reports can critically affect patient care and may become the subject of media concern. This article considers how audit in histopathology can provide information about errors and inconsistencies in the diagnosis of surgical specimens. The use of audit to generate information about the background level of errors in pathology reports is reviewed, along with findings about the nature of these errors and the types of specimens more commonly affected. Generic audit strategies that can be used to minimize the risk of errors in reports are discussed, together with the use of audit to evaluate diagnostic criteria and pathological scoring or grading systems. The role of audit in determining the informational content of reports is included, and there is consideration of the relationship between sample size and error rates. The limited extent to which audit can be used to assess the performance of individual pathologists is also covered.

Internal quality assurance activities of a surgical pathology department in an Australian teaching hospital

AIM

To assess the role of a quality assurance programme in improving the service provided by a surgical pathology department.

METHODS

A continuous internal quality assurance study of the activities of an anatomical pathology department in an Australian teaching hospital was undertaken over a five year period. This addressed all steps involved in the production of a surgical pathology report. These were addressed in an open forum which included technical, scientific, clerical, and medical staff. Minor errors not needing immediate action were discussed and incorporated into laboratory practice. For major discrepancies with potential implications for patient management supplementary reports were issued and the relevant clinician informed of the outcome.

RESULTS

Comprehensive peer review of 8.9% of the total workload of the department (3530 cases) and all the frozen sections (916 cases) over a period of five years, beginning in 1991, led to comments on some aspects of the original report by the reviewer in 19.6% of the cases. The great majority of the comments were minor, concerning issues related to the microscopic findings (4%), macroscopic description (3.1%), clerical aspects (3%), typographical errors (3%), coding errors (2.7%), technical errors including poor sections and incorrect labelling (1.7%), inadequate clinical history (1.2%), and incomplete or incomprehensible diagrams (0.9%). In two cases (0.05%) the original report did not state proximity of the tumour to surgical margins and in three of the frozen sections (0.3%) the original diagnosis was incorrect. However, in these cases the frozen section assessment did not alter the overall management of the cases.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the importance of a review system in detecting errors in surgical pathology reporting. Recognition of the fact that surgical pathology is not infallible has improved the end product. It has also minimised interobserver variability in the department, resulting in a uniform approach among the pathologists to macroscopic description, specimen sampling, special stains, and histological reporting.