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

Benign proliferative breast diseases among female patients at a sub-Saharan Africa tertiary hospital: a cross sectional study

Background

Non-cancerous diseases of the breast have assumed increasing importance because of the public awareness of breast cancer. These benign diseases are a recognized important risk factor for later breast cancer which can develop in either breast. The risk estimate of these benign breast diseases has not been well established in sub Saharan Africa. Women with benign proliferative or atypical breast lesions have a two- fold risk of developing breast cancer in western populations. The purpose of this study therefore was to determine the prevalence of proliferative disease ( BPBD) with and without atypia among Ugandan Black women.

Methods

A cross-sectional descriptive study conducted at Mulago Hospital Breast Clinic between January 2012 and June 2012; 208 women aged 12 years and above with palpable breast lumps were screened. Fine needle aspiration biopsies were taken for cytological examination.

Results

Of the 208 women with benign breast lumps screened, 195 were recruited in the study. The prevalence of BPBD was 18% (35/195). BPBD with atypia was 5.6% (11/195). The mean age and body mass index (BMI) were 28.4 years and 23.26 kg/m² respectively. The commonest lesions were fibroadenomas for 57%, (111/195), and fibrocystic change were 21% (40/195). Most BPBD with atypia lesions were in the fibrocystic category.

Conclusions

Benign proliferative breast diseases are common, found mostly among premenopausal women. A significant proportion of BPBD had atypical proliferation. An accurate breast cancer risk estimate study for BPBD is recommended.

Diagnostic errors in patients dying in hospital: radiology's contribution

We propose a comprehensive taxonomy of diagnostic errors in radiology that incorporates requests, image acquisition, radiological reports and evidence of communication to the treating team, and is retrospectively applicable to a given set of radiological episodes using pre-existing standard hospital databases. The taxonomy applies four binary tests to each diagnostic error using widely available hospital records, such as radiological requests, images in Picture Archiving and Communication System, radiological reports and hospital patient records. The taxonomy classifies errors into seven mutually exclusive patterns: no relevant imaging, consistent error (technical non-demonstration), consistent error (human error), ignored correct dissenting radiology result, de novo radiology error (technical non-demonstration), de novo radiology error (human error), and ignored correct confirmatory radiology result. The taxonomy was validated against a set of 250 diagnostic errors identified from an audit of clinical and radiological diagnoses with autopsy as the reference standard. All errors were successfully classified by the taxonomy, and the point of initiation of the error assigned. Of a total of 250 diagnostic errors, 138 (55%) had no relevant imaging performed. Ninety percent of all errors (226) were due to human error only, whether at the stage of clinical suspicion, the radiologist's diagnosis, or afterwards. Of the 112 imaged errors, only 12 (11%) were initiated at diagnostic imaging. The taxonomy of diagnostic error we present is comprehensive, allows retrospective audit of error with commonly available data, and provides clinically useful identification of the point of error initiation.

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.

Improving Patient Safety Through Quality Assurance

Context.—Anatomic pathology laboratories use several quality assurance tools to detect errors and to improve patient safety.

Objective.—To review some of the anatomic pathology laboratory patient safety quality assurance practices.

Design.—Different standards and measures in anatomic pathology quality assurance and patient safety were reviewed.

Main Outcome Measures.—Frequency of anatomic pathology laboratory error, variability in the use of specific quality assurance practices, and use of data for error reduction initiatives.

Results.—Anatomic pathology error frequencies vary according to the detection method used. Based on secondary review, a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study showed that the mean laboratory error frequency was 6.7%. A College of American Pathologists Q-Tracks study measuring frozen section discrepancy found that laboratories improved the longer they monitored and shared data. There is a lack of standardization across laboratories even for governmentally mandated quality assurance practices, such as cytologic-histologic correlation. The National Institutes of Health funded a consortium of laboratories to benchmark laboratory error frequencies, perform root cause analysis, and design error reduction initiatives, using quality assurance data. Based on the cytologic-histologic correlation process, these laboratories found an aggregate nongynecologic error frequency of 10.8%. Based on gynecologic error data, the laboratory at my institution used Toyota production system processes to lower gynecologic error frequencies and to improve Papanicolaou test metrics.

Conclusion.—Laboratory quality assurance practices have been used to track error rates, and laboratories are starting to use these data for error reduction initiatives.

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%.

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.