Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...
Generate a file for use with external citation management software.
Department of Pathology, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, CO 80045, USA.
Different error detection methods yield different error proportions and have variable benefits for surgical pathology divisions with limited resources. We performed a nonconcurrent cohort study at a large institution that practices subspecialty surgical pathology sign-out to compare the effectiveness and usefulness of error detection using a targeted 5% random review process and a focused review process. Pathologists reviewed 7,444 cases using a targeted 5% random review process and 380 cases using a focused review process. The numbers of errors detected by the targeted 5% random and focused review processes were 195 (2.6% of reviewed cases) and 50 (13.2%), respectively (P < .001). The numbers of major errors for the targeted 5% random and focused review processes was 27 (0.36%) and 12 (3.2%), respectively (P < .001). Focused review detects a higher proportion of errors and may be more effectively used for design of error reduction initiatives.
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
Turn recording back on