Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Error Reduction and Prevention in Surgical Pathology pp 199–213Cite as

Error Prevention in Transcription and Report Distribution

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 535 Accesses

Abstract

An anatomic pathology report can drive a patient’s entire treatment plan (surgery, radiation therapy, medical therapy); therefore, the accuracy of anatomic pathology reports is critical. Even if the pathologist correctly interprets the gross and microscopic findings of a case, errors can still occur because of flaws in data transmission between the pathologist and the report recipient. The prosector and the attending pathologist’s findings must be transcribed (either manually or using voice recognition software) or directly entered into the final report. The final report must contain all relevant data points in a format and language that is comprehensible to the treating physician. This chapter discusses errors that can arise in the transcription and distribution of diagnostic data in pathology reports. Strategies for assessment and prevention of these errors in real practice situations are provided.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   99.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Forsman RW. Why is the laboratory an afterthought for managed care organizations? Clin Chem. 1996;42(5):813–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pathologists’, C.o.A. CAP electronic checklists eCC. 2018. June 15, 2018; Available from: http://www.cap.org/web/home/lab/proficiency-testing/cap-eCC.

  3. Malami SA, Iliyasu Y. Local audit of diagnostic surgical pathology as a tool for quality assurance. Niger J Med. 2008;17(2):186–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Zardawi IM, et al. Internal quality assurance activities of a surgical pathology department in an Australian teaching hospital. J Clin Pathol. 1998;51(9):695–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Troxel DB. Error in surgical pathology. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28(8):1092–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Paxton A. Bringing down defects in surgical pathology reports. In: CAP Today. 2012. http://www.captodayonline.com/Archives/0512/0512d_bringing_down.html.

  7. Raab SS, Nakhleh RE, Ruby SG. Patient safety in anatomic pathology: measuring discrepancy frequencies and causes. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129(4):459–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Meier FA, et al. Amended reports: development and validation of a taxonomy of defects. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008;130(2):238–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kohn LT, Corrigan J, Donaldson MS. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press; 2000. p. xxi, 287.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Nieva VF, Sorra J. Safety culture assessment: a tool for improving patient safety in healthcare organizations. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12(Suppl 2):ii17–23.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Resar RK, Rozich JD, Classen D. Methodology and rationale for the measurement of harm with trigger tools. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12(Suppl 2):ii39–45.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Winget M, et al. Electronic Release of Pathology and Radiology Results to Patients: Opinions and Experiences of Oncologists. J Oncol Pract. 2016;12(8):e792–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Hanauer DA, et al. Patient-initiated electronic health record amendment requests. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(6):992–1000.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Nakhleh RE. Patient safety and error reduction in surgical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132(2):181–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Alwang G. Speech recognition: finding its voice. PC Mag. 1998;17(18):191–8.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pezzullo JA, et al. Voice recognition dictation: radiologist as transcriptionist. J Digit Imaging. 2008;21(4):384–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Strahan RH, Schneider-Kolsky ME. Voice recognition versus transcriptionist: error rates and productivity in MRI reporting. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2010;54(5):411–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Singh M, Pal TR. Voice recognition technology implementation in surgical pathology: advantages and limitations. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011;135(11):1476–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Suvalsky S, Boelman V. Voice recognition technology vs. manual transcription. Medical Laboratory Observer. 2012;44(9):38–9.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Baugh R, Jones JE, Trott K, Takyi VE, Abbas JT. Medical scribes. J Med Pract Manage. 2012;28(3):195–7.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Services’, U.D.o.H.a.H. Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act. 2009. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/special-topics/hitech-act-enforcement-interim-final-rule/index.html.

  22. Meigs SL, Solomon M. Electronic health record use a bitter pill for many physicians. Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2016;13:1d.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Madison WE. Epic electronic health record. Epic. (Accessed 2018). https://www.epic.com/

  24. Bush RA, et al. Structured data entry in the electronic medical record: perspectives of pediatric specialty physicians and surgeons. J Med Syst. 2017;41(5):75.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Kang HP, et al. Experience with voice recognition in surgical pathology at a large academic multi-institutional center. Am J Clin Pathol. 2010;133(1):156–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. O’Reilly KB. Hear me now? Another audition for speech recognition. In: CAP Today. 2015. https://www.captodayonline.com/hear-now-another-audition-speech-recognition/.

  27. Paxton A. Benefits and bumps of shifting to Beaker. In: CAP Today. 2017. https://www.captodayonline.com/hear-now-another-audition-speech-recognition/.

  28. Nakhleh RE, Zarbo RJ. Amended reports in surgical pathology and implications for diagnostic error detection and avoidance: a College of American Pathologists Q-probes study of 1,667,547 accessioned cases in 359 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1998;122(4):303–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Panackal AA, et al. Automatic electronic laboratory-based reporting of notifiable infectious diseases at a large health system. Emerg Infect Dis. 2002;8(7):685–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Government, U.S., Code of Federal Regulations. http://wwwn.cdc.gov/clia/Regulatory/default.aspx.

  31. Cowan DF, Gray RZ, Campbell B. Validation of the laboratory information system. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1998;122(3):239–44.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Zhao T, et al. An enterprise approach for pathology reporting utilizing PDF functionality for the electronic medical record. J Health Med Inform. 2016;7(244).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ruby SG. Clinician interpretation of pathology reports: confusion or comprehension? Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124(7):943–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Powsner SM, Costa J, Homer RJ. Clinicians are from Mars and pathologists are from Venus. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124(7):1040–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Valenstein PN. Formatting pathology reports: applying four design principles to improve communication and patient safety. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132(1):84–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Strobel SL, Tatchell T. The surgical pathology report as an educational tool for cancer patients. Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2002;32(4):363–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Miller GA. The magical number seven plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev. 1956;63(2):81–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Nakhleh RE. What is quality in surgical pathology? J Clin Pathol. 2006;59(7):669–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    Shannon J. McCall

Authors
  1. Shannon J. McCall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shannon J. McCall .

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

McCall, S.J. (2019). Error Prevention in Transcription and Report Distribution. 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_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18464-3_13

  • 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