Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Error Reduction in the Preanalytical Process

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Error Reduction and Prevention in Surgical Pathology

  • 976 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter summarizes the most common sources of error in the preanalytical processes of surgical pathology, including specimen accessioning and grossing, tissue processing and embedding, the cutting and flotation of tissue sections onto microscopic slides, and the process of slide “sign-out,” in which the microscopic slides are reviewed for quality, matched with typed gross descriptions, and distributed to the pathologist. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the role of histology quality control in error reduction and a strategy for the investigation of extraneous tissue, a potential source of serious diagnostic error in surgical pathology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Brown RW. Preanalytical variables: specimen submission and handling. In: Nakhleh RE, Fitzgibbons PL, editors. Quality improvement manual in anatomic pathology. Northfield: College of American Pathologists; 2002. p. 25–30.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Troxel DB, Sabella JD. Problem areas in pathology practice uncovered by a review of malpractice claims. Am J Surg Pathol. 1994;18:821–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Troxel DB. Error in surgical pathology. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28:1092–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Nakhleh RE. Lost, mislabeled, and unsuitable surgical pathology specimens. Pathol Case Rev. 2003;8:98–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Tworek JA. Safety practices in surgical pathology: practical steps to reduce error in the pre-analytic, analytic, and post-analytic phases of surgical pathology. Diagn Histopathol. 2008;14:292–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cooper K. Errors and error rates in surgical pathology. An Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology Survey. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130:607–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nakhleh RE, Zarbo RJ. Surgical pathology specimen identification and accessioning: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 1,004,115 cases from 417 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996;120:227–33.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nakhleh RE, Idowu MO, Souers RJ, Meier FA, Bekeris LG. Mislabeling of cases, specimens, blocks, and slides: a College of American Pathologists study of 136 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011;135:969–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gephardt GN, Zarbo RJ. Extraneous tissue in surgical pathology: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 275 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996;120:1009–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Zarbo RJ, Meier FA, Raab SS. Error detection in anatomic pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129:1237–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Meier FA, Zarbo RJ, Varney CT, Bonsal M, Schultz DS, Vrbin CM, Grzybicki DM, Raab SS. Amended reports: development and validation of a taxonomy of defects. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008;130:238–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Meier FA, Varney RC, Zarbo RJ. Study of amended reports to evaluate and improve surgical pathology processes. Adv Anat Pathol. 2011;18:406–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Layfield LJ, Anderson GM. Specimen labeling errors in surgical pathology: an 18-month experience. Am J Clin Pathol. 2010;134:466–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pfeifer JD, Liu J. Rate of occult specimen provenance complications in routine clinical practice. Am J Clin Pathol. 2013;138:93–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dimenstein IB. Root cause analysis of specimen misidentification in surgical pathology accessioning and grossing. Lab Med. 2008;39:497–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dunn EJ, Moga PJ. Patient misidentification in laboratory medicine: a qualitative analysis of 227 root cause analysis reports in the Veterans Health Administration. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134:244–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schmidt RL, Messinger BL, Layfield LJ. Internal labeling errors in a surgical pathology department: a root cause analysis. Lab Med. 2013;44:176–85.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Smith ML, Raab SS. Assessment of latent factors contributing to error: addressing surgical pathology error wisely. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011;135:1436–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. D’Angelo R, Zarbo RJ. The Henry Ford production system. Measures of process defects and waste in surgical pathology as a basis for quality improvement initiatives. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007;128:423–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zarbo RJ, D’Angelo R. The Henry Ford production system. Effective reduction of process defects and waste in surgical pathology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007;128:1015–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nakhleh RE. Error reduction in surgical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130:630–2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nakhleh RE. Patient safety and error reduction in surgical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132:181–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Smith ML, Wilkerson T, Grzybicki DM, Raab SS. The effect of a lean quality improvement implementation program on surgical pathology specimen accessioning and gross preparation error frequency. Am J Clin Pathol. 2012;138:367–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Zarbo RJ, Tuthill JM, D’Angelo R, Varney R, Mahar B, Neuman C, Ormsby A. The Henry Ford production system. Reduction of surgical pathology in-process misidentification defects by bar code-specified work process standardization. Am J Clin Pathol. 2009;131:468–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Abbuhl MF, Ferguson KL. The use of bar-coding and tracking in surgical pathology to enhance patient safety. J Histotehnol. 2009;32:165–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Francis DL, Prabhakar S, Sanderson SO. A quality initiative to decrease pathology specimen-labeling errors using radiofrequency identification in a high-volume endoscopy center. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:972–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Makary MA, Epstein J, Pronovost PJ, Millman EA, Hartmann EC, Freischling JA. Surgical specimen identification errors: a new measure of quality in surgical care. Surgery. 2007;141:450–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim JK, Dotson B, Thomas S, Nelson KC. Standardized patient identification and specimen labeling: a retrospective analysis on improving patient safety. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;68:53–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Layfield LJ, Witt BL, Metzger KG, Anderson GM. Extraneous tissue: a potential source of diagnostic error in surgical pathology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2011;136:767–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Platt E, Sommer P, McDonald L, Bennett A, Hunt J. Tissue floaters and contaminants in the histology laboratory. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133:973–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hunt, JL, Swalsky P, Sasatomi E, Niehouse L, Bakker A, Finkelstein SD. A microdissection and molecular genotyping assay to confirm the identity of tissue floaters in paraffin-embedded tissue blocks. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003;127:213–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hunt JL. Identifying cross contaminant and specimen mix-ups in surgical pathology. Adv Anat Pathol. 2008;15:211–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ritter JH, Sutton TD, Wick MR. Use of immunostains to ABH blood group antigens to resolve problems in identity of tissue specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1994;118:293–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Riopel MA, Yu I-T, Hruban RH, Lazenby AJ, Griffin CA, Perlman EJ. Whose tumor is this? FISHing for the answer. Mod Pathol. 1995;8:456–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Shibata D. Identification of mismatched fixed specimens with a commercially available kit based on the polymerase chain reaction. Am J Clin Pathol. 1993;100:666–70.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. System Laboratory Services, Memorial Hermann Healthcare System, 7600 Beechnut, Pathology, 2nd Floor, Houston, TX, 77074, USA

    Richard W. Brown MD

Authors
  1. Richard W. Brown MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard W. Brown MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Pathology, Mayo Clinic Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida, USA

    Raouf E. Nakhleh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Brown, R. (2015). Error Reduction in the Preanalytical Process. In: Nakhleh, R. (eds) Error Reduction and Prevention in Surgical Pathology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2339-7_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2339-7_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-2338-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-2339-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation