多学科小组会议组织病理学审查的作用及其对修订报告的影响:国家质量改进计划分析。

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 PATHOLOGY American journal of clinical pathology Pub Date : 2024-06-03 DOI:10.1093/ajcp/aqad183
Eoghan O'Connor, Ann Treacy, Aine Mitchell, Niall Swan
{"title":"多学科小组会议组织病理学审查的作用及其对修订报告的影响:国家质量改进计划分析。","authors":"Eoghan O'Connor, Ann Treacy, Aine Mitchell, Niall Swan","doi":"10.1093/ajcp/aqad183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We conducted the first Irish national study assessing the value of multidisciplinary team meeting review in pathology practice and its impact on error detection before treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Public and private pathology laboratories across Ireland capture their quality activities using standardized codes and submit their data to a centralized database (National Quality Assurance Intelligence System) overseen by the National Histopathology Quality Improvement (NHQI) program. A total of 1,437,746 histopathology and cytopathology cases submitted to the NHQI program over a 60-month period (January 2017 to December 2021) were included in this study. Cases were analyzed with respect to multidisciplinary team meeting peer review and the presence of a revised report (amended or corrected report), a surrogate marker for error detection before treatment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across all cases assessed, 13.74% (197,587) underwent multidisciplinary team meeting discussion. Cases discussed at review had a statistically significantly higher rate of revised reports (1.25% [2470]) than cases not discussed at review (0.16% [1959]) (Pearson χ2, 6619.26; P < .0001; odds ratio, 8.00 [95% CI, 7.54-8.49]). Overall, multidisciplinary team meeting review made it 8 times more likely to detect an error before treatment. Cancer resections had the highest rate of review at 55.29% (46,806), reflecting the prioritization of oncology case discussion at review meetings.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The multidisciplinary team meeting review process plays a valuable role in pathology error detection. A pathologist's participation in the review process comes with a clinically significant workload that needs to be recognized for future workforce planning. This study highlighted the positive role pathologists play in enhancing patient safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":7506,"journal":{"name":"American journal of clinical pathology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The role of multidisciplinary team meeting histopathology review and its impact on revised reports: Analysis of a national quality improvement program.\",\"authors\":\"Eoghan O'Connor, Ann Treacy, Aine Mitchell, Niall Swan\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ajcp/aqad183\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We conducted the first Irish national study assessing the value of multidisciplinary team meeting review in pathology practice and its impact on error detection before treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Public and private pathology laboratories across Ireland capture their quality activities using standardized codes and submit their data to a centralized database (National Quality Assurance Intelligence System) overseen by the National Histopathology Quality Improvement (NHQI) program. A total of 1,437,746 histopathology and cytopathology cases submitted to the NHQI program over a 60-month period (January 2017 to December 2021) were included in this study. Cases were analyzed with respect to multidisciplinary team meeting peer review and the presence of a revised report (amended or corrected report), a surrogate marker for error detection before treatment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across all cases assessed, 13.74% (197,587) underwent multidisciplinary team meeting discussion. Cases discussed at review had a statistically significantly higher rate of revised reports (1.25% [2470]) than cases not discussed at review (0.16% [1959]) (Pearson χ2, 6619.26; P < .0001; odds ratio, 8.00 [95% CI, 7.54-8.49]). Overall, multidisciplinary team meeting review made it 8 times more likely to detect an error before treatment. Cancer resections had the highest rate of review at 55.29% (46,806), reflecting the prioritization of oncology case discussion at review meetings.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The multidisciplinary team meeting review process plays a valuable role in pathology error detection. A pathologist's participation in the review process comes with a clinically significant workload that needs to be recognized for future workforce planning. This study highlighted the positive role pathologists play in enhancing patient safety.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7506,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of clinical pathology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of clinical pathology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqad183\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of clinical pathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqad183","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:我们进行了爱尔兰首次全国性研究,评估多学科团队会议审查在病理学实践中的价值及其对治疗前错误检测的影响:我们开展了爱尔兰首次全国性研究,评估多学科团队会议审查在病理实践中的价值及其对治疗前错误检测的影响:方法:爱尔兰的公立和私立病理实验室使用标准化代码记录其质量活动,并将数据提交至由国家组织病理学质量改进计划(NHQI)监督的中央数据库(国家质量保证情报系统)。本研究纳入了60个月内(2017年1月至2021年12月)提交给NHQI计划的共计143746例组织病理学和细胞病理学病例。研究分析了病例的多学科团队会议同行评审情况和修订报告(修订或更正报告)的存在情况,修订报告是治疗前发现错误的替代标志:在所有接受评估的病例中,13.74%(197587 例)的病例经过了多学科小组会议讨论。经复核讨论的病例修订报告率(1.25% [2470])明显高于未经复核讨论的病例(0.16% [1959]),差异有统计学意义(Pearson χ2,6619.26;P 结论:多学科团队会议复核是一种有效的方法:多学科团队会议审查流程在病理错误检测中发挥着重要作用。病理学家在参与审查过程的同时也承担着重要的临床工作量,这一点需要在未来的劳动力规划中得到认可。本研究强调了病理学家在提高患者安全方面发挥的积极作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The role of multidisciplinary team meeting histopathology review and its impact on revised reports: Analysis of a national quality improvement program.

Objectives: We conducted the first Irish national study assessing the value of multidisciplinary team meeting review in pathology practice and its impact on error detection before treatment.

Methods: Public and private pathology laboratories across Ireland capture their quality activities using standardized codes and submit their data to a centralized database (National Quality Assurance Intelligence System) overseen by the National Histopathology Quality Improvement (NHQI) program. A total of 1,437,746 histopathology and cytopathology cases submitted to the NHQI program over a 60-month period (January 2017 to December 2021) were included in this study. Cases were analyzed with respect to multidisciplinary team meeting peer review and the presence of a revised report (amended or corrected report), a surrogate marker for error detection before treatment.

Results: Across all cases assessed, 13.74% (197,587) underwent multidisciplinary team meeting discussion. Cases discussed at review had a statistically significantly higher rate of revised reports (1.25% [2470]) than cases not discussed at review (0.16% [1959]) (Pearson χ2, 6619.26; P < .0001; odds ratio, 8.00 [95% CI, 7.54-8.49]). Overall, multidisciplinary team meeting review made it 8 times more likely to detect an error before treatment. Cancer resections had the highest rate of review at 55.29% (46,806), reflecting the prioritization of oncology case discussion at review meetings.

Conclusions: The multidisciplinary team meeting review process plays a valuable role in pathology error detection. A pathologist's participation in the review process comes with a clinically significant workload that needs to be recognized for future workforce planning. This study highlighted the positive role pathologists play in enhancing patient safety.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
2.90%
发文量
367
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Clinical Pathology (AJCP) is the official journal of the American Society for Clinical Pathology and the Academy of Clinical Laboratory Physicians and Scientists. It is a leading international journal for publication of articles concerning novel anatomic pathology and laboratory medicine observations on human disease. AJCP emphasizes articles that focus on the application of evolving technologies for the diagnosis and characterization of diseases and conditions, as well as those that have a direct link toward improving patient care.
期刊最新文献
Culture and other direct detection methods to diagnose human granulocytic anaplasmosis. Validation of monocyte CD169 expression as a valuable rapid diagnostic marker of SARS-CoV-2 and other acute viral infections. Site-discordant expression of myeloid cell nuclear differentiation antigen in blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm. Epstein-Barr virus–positive, primary cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma, with transformation: Case report and review of the literature RhD-positive red blood cell allocation practice to RhD-negative patients before and during the COVID-19 pandemic
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1