Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Communicating Effectively in Surgical Pathology

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

  • 557 Accesses

Abstract

Surgical pathologists have two main communication tasks: (1) convey clear, accurate, unambiguous, and complete diagnostic information in a timely fashion; and (2) create a permanent record of findings to guide treatment and ensure accountability, a medico-legal duty. While it is true that “the most beautifully-composed report is worthless if the diagnosis is inaccurate,” it is equally true that the most astute diagnosis, if communicated poorly, may be misconstrued. Because faulty comprehension can lead to clinical error, surgical pathologists must attend to all facets of report construction that can affect comprehension: design layout; the readers (many of them nonpathologists); format; style and language (word choice and order); saying too little (incomplete) or too much (distracting); and using addenda effectively. This chapter provides ten practical tips for writing clear, effective, and timely diagnoses, including those that are urgent or significant and unexpected.

Effective oral communication is an equally important learned skill. Surgical pathologists must know how to clearly articulate frozen section diagnoses in real-time and accurately document the exchange. This chapter describes three safety maneuvers for providing intraoperative support to surgeons. Lastly, after the report is delivered, the most valued pathologists are accessible, willing, and comfortable in discussing the report with members of the medical care team.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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. Nakhleh RE. Quality in surgical pathology communication and reporting. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011;135:1394–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lehr H-A, Bosman FT. Communication skills in diagnostic pathology. Virchows Arch. 2016;468:61–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Valenstein P. Formatting pathology reports: Applying four design principles to improve communication and patient safety. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132:84–94.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Renshaw SA, Mena-Allauca M, Touriz M, Renshaw A, Gould EW. The impact of template format on the completeness of surgical pathology reports. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138:121–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Renshaw AA, Gould EW. Comparison of accuracy and speed of information identification by nonpathologists in synoptic reports with different formats. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2017;141:418–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. College of American Pathologists. Tools: how to read your pathology report. http://www.cap.org/ShowProperty?nodePath=/UCMCon/Contribution%20Folders/WebContent/pdf/how-to-read-pathology-report.pdf. [updated 2015] and National Cancer Institute Fact Sheet [Internet]. National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. Pathology Reports [updated 2010 Sep;]. Available from: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/diagnosis-staging/diagnosis/pathology-reports-fact-sheet. Accessed 9 Sept 2018.

  7. Webster’s seventh new collegiate dictionary. Springfield: G. & C. Merriam Company; 1971. Narrate, p. 562; synoptic, p. 894.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hsu J. The secrets of storytelling: Why we love a good yarn. Sci Am Mind. 2008;19:46–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ellis DW, Srigley J. Does standardised structured reporting contribute to quality in diagnostic pathology? The importance of evidence-based datasets. Virchows Arch. 2016;468:51–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Pearce N. Style – what is it and does it matter? In: Hall GM, editor. How to write a paper. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Books; 1998. p. 116–21.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Williams JM. Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. 7th ed. New York: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Greene AE. Writing science in plain English. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2013.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Zarbo RJ, Gephardt GN, Howanitz PJ. Intralaboratory timeliness of surgical pathology reports: Results of two College of American Pathologists Q-Probes studies of biopsies and complex specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996;120:234–44.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Zarbo RJ, Nakhleh RE, Walsh ME. Quality Practices Committee, College of American Pathologists. Customer satisfaction in anatomic pathology: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 3065 physician surveys from 94 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003;127:23–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nakhleh RE, Souers R, Ruby SG. Physician satisfaction with surgical pathology reports — a 2-year College of American Pathologists Q-Tracks study. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132:1719–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lankshear S, Srigley J, McGowan T, Yurcan M, Sawka C. Standardized synoptic cancer pathology reports — so what and who cares? A population-based satisfaction survey of 970 pathologists, surgeons, and oncologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013;137:1599–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. CAP Accreditation Program [updated 2018]. http://www.cap.org/web/home/lab/accreditation/laboratory-accreditation-program?_afrLoop=209069404895222#!%40%40%3F_afrLoop%3D209069404895222%26_adf.ctrl-state%3D1498r2z1ex_4. Accessed 21 Sept 2018.

  18. Powsner SM, Costa J, Homer RJ. Clinicians are from Mars and pathologists are from Venus: Clinician interpretation of pathology reports. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:1040–6.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Smith SM, Yearsley M. Constructing comments in a pathology report. Advice for the pathology resident. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016;140:1023–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wikipedia contributors. Lead paragraph [Internet]. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia; 2014 Aug 26, 18:09 UTC [cited 2014 Oct 21]. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lead_paragraph&oldid=575450528.

  21. Renshaw MA, Gould EW, Renshaw A. Just say no to the use of no: Alternative terminology for improving anatomic pathology reports. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134:1250–2.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Allen TC. Thank you, no. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134:1248–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Idowu MO, Wiles A, Wan W, Wilkinson DS, Powers CN. Equivocal or ambiguous terminologies in pathology: Focus of continuous quality improvement? Am J Surg Pathol. 2013;37:1722–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Coffin CM. Turnaround Time. In: Nakhleh RE, Fitzgibbons PL, editors. Quality improvement manual in anatomic pathology. 2nd ed. Northfield: College of American Pathologists (CAP); 2002. p. 42–8.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Nakhleh RE, Myers JL, Allen TC, DeYoung BR, Fitzgibbons PL, Funkhouser WK, Mody DR, Lynn A, Fatheree LA, Smith AT, Lal A, Silverman JF. Consensus statement on effective communication of urgent diagnoses and significant, unexpected diagnoses in surgical pathology and cytopathology from the College of American Pathologists and Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012;136:148–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Davis GG, Scott MA. Impact of law on pathology practice – everyday occurrences. In: Davis GG, editor. Pathology and law: a practical guide for the pathologist. New York: Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.; 2004. p. 17–76.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Carter DK. Regulatory Compliance. In: Nakhleh RE, Fitzgibbons PL, editors. Quality improvement manual in anatomic pathology. 2nd ed. Northfield: College of American Pathologists (CAP); 2002. p. 9–19.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Parkash V, Domfeh A, Cohen P, Fischbach N, Pronovost M, Haines GK III, et al. Are amended surgical pathology reports getting to the correct responsible care provider? Am J Clin Pathol. 2014;142:58–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology and Laboratory medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Carolyn Mies

Authors
  1. Carolyn Mies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carolyn Mies .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL, USA

    Raouf E. Nakhleh

  2. Rex Healthcare, Raleigh, NC, USA

    Keith E. Volmar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mies, C. (2019). Communicating Effectively in Surgical Pathology. In: Nakhleh, R., Volmar, K. (eds) Error Reduction and Prevention in Surgical Pathology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18464-3_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18464-3_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-18463-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-18464-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation