Hospital Autopsy Performance and Reporting

Abstract

Postmortem examinations have been performed for centuries (King and Meehan, Am J Pathol 73(2): 514–541, 1973; Burton, The history of the autopsy. Hodder Arnold, Hachette UK, London, pp 1–10, 2010) and have a long and venerable tradition, one which is sadly on the decline worldwide (Underwood, The future of the autopsy. Hodder Arnold, Hachette UK, London, pp 11–17, 2010; Nemetz et al., Mayo Clin Proc 64:1065–2076, 1989; Kaplan, Hum Pathol 9(2):127–129, 1978; Roberts, N Engl J Med 299:332–337, 1978; Haber, Arch Pathol Lab Med 120:714–717, 1996; AMA Council on Scientific Affairs, Arch Pathol Lab Med 120:721–726, 1996; Sanner, Arch Pathol Lab Med 118:878–883, 1994; Robinson, Hum Pathol 14(7):566–568, 1983). One of the reasons cited for the decline in postmortem examinations is new imaging techniques such as computerized tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. The advent of these new diagnostic procedures has not resulted in obsolescence of the relatively low-cost, high-yield autopsy examination (Goldman et al., N Engl J Med 308:1000–1005, 1983). The procedure for performance of an autopsy, using the Zenker method (Volmar, History of autopsy technique. College of American Pathologists, Northfield, IL, pp 18–19, 2003), is described, in addition to the content and format of the written report.