Abstract
As early as 1912, autopsy was noted by Cabot to be a medical procedure to obtain a diagnosis in complex cases, to provide quality assessment of clinical practice, and to improve understanding of medical limitations [1, 2]. Anderson et al. [3] defined quality assessment as the quantitative evaluation of results or outcomes ranged within predefined acceptable limits Although in the United States, the institutional requirements of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education stated that a sufficient number of autopsies should be performed to maintain quality of patient care and for educational purposes, the autopsy rate has fallen over recent decades, from 50% in the 1940s to 10% in the 1980s [4]. This decline has been attributed to a number of factors, including:
-
the fear of diagnostic errors being detected at autopsy;
-
heary work for the pathologists;
-
the high non-reimbursable cost involved in the procedure;
-
difficulties in obtain consent from the family; and
-
the greater sensitivity and specificity of modern diagnostic techniques [5, 6].
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Cabot RC (1912) Diagnostic pitfalls identified during a study of 3000 autopsies. JAMA 59: 2295–2298
Goldman L (1984) Diagnostic advances vs the valve of the autopsy. Arch Pathol Lab Med 108: 501–505
Anderson RE (1984) The autopsy as an instrument of quality assessment: Classification of postmortem and premortem diagnostic discrepancies. Arch Pathol Lab Med 108: 490–493
Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (1996) Revised essentials of accredited residencies in graduate medical education. Part I, Institutional Requirements. ACGME Bulletin. ACGME, Chicago
Landefeld CS, Chren MM, Myers A, Geller R, Robbins S, Goldman L (1988) Diagnostic yield of the autopsy in a university hospital and a community hospital. N Engl J Med 318: 1249–1254
McPhee SJ, Bottles K (1985) Autopsy: Moribund art or viral science? Am J Med 78: 107–113
Hasson J, Gross H (1974) The autopsy and quality assessment of medical care. Am J Med 56: 137–140
Battle R, Pathack D, Humble CC, et al (1987) Factors influencing discrepancies between premortem and postmortem diagnosis. JAMA 258: 339–344
Cameron HM, McCoogan E (1981) A prospective study of 1152 hospital autopsies. II. Analysis of inaccuracies in clinical diagnoses and their significance. J Pathol 133: 285–300
Gibinski K, Hartleb M, Koturbasz D (1985) Comparison between pre-and post-mortem diagnoses in a consecutive series of patients. Scand J Gastroenterol 20: 370–372
Stephanovic G, Tucakovic G, Dotlic R, Kanjuh V (1986) Correlation of clinical diagnoses with athopsy findings: A retrospective study of 2145 consecutive autopsies. Hum Pathol 17: 1225–1230
Landefeld CS, Goldman L (1989) The autopsy in clinical medicine. Mayo Clin Proc 64: 1185–1189
Goldman L, Sayson R, Robbins S, et al (1983) The value of autopsy in three medical eras. N Engl J Med 308: 1000–1005
Fernandez-Segoviano P, Lazaro A, Esteban A, et al (1988) Autopsy as quality assurance in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 16: 683–685
Blosser SA, Zimmerman HE, Stauffer JL (1998) Do autopsies of critically ill patients reveal important findings that were clinically undetected. Crit Care Med 26: 1332–1336
Mort TC, Yeston NS (1999) The relationship of pre-mortem diagnoses and post-mortem findings in a surgical intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 27: 299–303
Roosen J, Frans E, Wilmer A, Knockaert DC, Bobbaers H (2000) Comparison of postmortem clinical diagnoses in critically ill patients and subsequent autopsy findings. Mayo Clin Proc 75: 562–657
Tai D, El-Bilbeisi H, Tewari S, et al (2001) A study of consecutive autopsies in a medical ICU. A comparison of clinical cause of death and autopsy diagnosis. Chest 119: 530–536
Podbregar M, Voga G, Krivec B, Skale R, Poreznik R, Gabrescek L (2001) Should we confirm our clinical diagnostic certainty by autopsies. Intensive Care Med 27: 1756–1761
Goldstein B, Metlay L, Cox C, Rubenstein JS (1996) Association of pre mortem diagnosis and autopsy findings in pediatric intensive care unit versus emergency department versus ward patients. Crit Care Med 24: 683–686
Cameron HM, McCoogan E, Watson H (1980) Necropsy: a yardstick for clinical diagnoses. Br Med J 281: 985–988
Ferretti GR, Bosson JL, Buffaz PD, et al (1997) Acute pulmonary embolism: Role of helical CT in 164 patients with intermediate probability at ventilation-perfusion scintigraphy and normal results at duplex US of the legs. Radiology 205: 453–458
Gouello JP, Asfar P, Brenet O, et al (2000) Nosocomial endocarditis in the intensive care unit: An analysis of 22 cases. Crit Care Med 28: 377–382
Geha DJ, Roberts GD (1994) Laboratory detection of fungemia. Clin Lab Med 14: 83–97
Niederman MS, Torres A, Summer W (1994) Invasive diagnosis testing is not needed routinely to manage suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 150: 565–574
Goldman L (1986) Autopsy: seventy-five years after Gabot. J Am Geriatr Soc 34: 897–898
Dimopoulos G, Piagnerelli M, Berrè J, Salmon I, Vincent JL (2000) Post mortem examination in the ICU. Still useful? Crit Care Med 28:78 a (Abst)
Ahronheim JC, Bernholc AS, Clark WD (1983) Age trends in autopsy rates: striking decline in late life. JAMA 250: 1182–1186
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dimopoulos, G. (2002). Are Autopsies still Useful in the Intensive Care Unit?. In: Vincent, JL. (eds) Intensive Care Medicine. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-5551-0_84
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-5551-0_84
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4757-5553-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-5551-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive