Pathology Reporting of Resected Colorectal Cancers in New South Wales in 2000

Chapuis, Pierre; Chan, Charles; Lin, Betty; Armstrong, Katie; Armstrong, Bruce K.; Spigelman, Allan D.; O’Connell, Dianne; Leong, David; Dent, Owen F.

doi:10.1111/j.1445-2197.2007.04291.x

Cited by 13 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That structured template reporting is superior to free text reporting is in accordance with previous studies that have evaluated the effect of imple- 20 Other studies on the completeness of histopathology reports on colorectal cancer resection have found values ranging from 5 to 68%. 21,23,27,28 One can argue that the absence of information on the key parameter most frequently missing in our study (distance to circumferential resection margin in colonic resections; Table 1), most probably had no clinical relevance. However, missing statements on key parameters make histopathology reports ambiguous and should accordingly be avoided.…”

Section: Commentmentioning

confidence: 90%

Structured Electronic Template for Histopathology Reporting on Colorectal Carcinoma Resections: Five-Year Follow-up Shows Sustainable Long-Term Quality Improvement

Casati¹,

Bjugn²

2012

Archives of Pathology &Amp; Laboratory Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective.-To investigate use and long-term effect of this structured template in one of the first laboratories implementing the template for routine diagnostic work.Design.-All histopathology reports (n = 123) in the 1-year period prior to implementation were evaluated with respect to presence of key parameters. Likewise, all histopathology reports (n = 1186) in the 5-year period after implementation were evaluated with respect to template use and presence of key parameters.Results.-The electronic template had been used in 1089 (91.8%) of the 1186 cases. Template use was stable in the entire 5-year period, and had significantly improved upon the presence of data on 7 of 11 key parameters valid for both the preimplementation and the postimplementation period. Eight hundred and twenty-two (75.5%) of the 1089 template reports contained information on all key parameters, compared to just 20 (16.3%) of the 123 free text reports in the 1-year preimplementation period.Conclusion.-Electronic template reporting has a significant and sustainable long-term, positive effect upon the quality of histopathology reports.

show abstract

Section: Commentmentioning

confidence: 90%

Structured Electronic Template for Histopathology Reporting on Colorectal Carcinoma Resections: Five-Year Follow-up Shows Sustainable Long-Term Quality Improvement

Casati¹,

Bjugn²

2012

Archives of Pathology &Amp; Laboratory Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Subsequent studies have emphasized the importance of synoptic (structured, proforma) reporting in areas of colorectal [12][13][14][15][16][17], breast [15,18,19], lung [20], melanoma [21], and hematolymphoid malignancy [22]. The completeness of reporting and ease of use of the information are points emphasized in these articles.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Standardized synoptic cancer pathology reporting: A population‐based approach

Srigley

McGowan

MacLean

et al. 2009

Journal of Surgical Oncology

169

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cancer pathology reports contain information which is critical for patient management and for cancer surveillance, resource planning, and quality purposes. The College of American Pathologists (CAP) has defined scientifically validated content of checklists that form the basis for synoptic cancer pathology reporting. We outline how the CAP standards were implemented in a large Canadian province over a 3-year period resulting in improvements in rates of synoptic reporting and completeness of cancer pathology reporting.J. Surg. Oncol. 2009;99:517-524. ß 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc. KEY WORDS: cancer pathology; standardization; synoptics; population study; outcomes INTRODUCTIONThe great majority of cancers are diagnosed through the combined efforts of surgeons and pathologists. A clear and thorough recording of the surgical and pathological findings allows assessment of diagnosis and prognosis, and thus facilitates treatment decisions for patients. In recent years, the complexity of cancer pathology reporting has significantly increased. The adequate surgical pathology report not only documents the presence and accurate typing of cancer but also contains information related to tumor grade, size, local extent, vessel involvement, marginal status along with other morphologic and sometimes ancillary results including tumor markers. In some tumor types, for instance breast cancer, the list of carcinoma descriptors can be quite daunting [1].There are four essential elements of quality in cancer pathology reporting: timeliness, accuracy, completeness, and usability. The timeliness or turnaround time of a cancer pathology report is clearly important as is the accuracy of the diagnostic and prognostic observations. The completeness of a cancer pathology report relative to an accepted standard is also an important reflection of overall quality. Cancer pathology reports should be timely, correct, and contain all the relevant information required for diagnosis, prognosis, and further treatment decisions. A fourth dimension of quality is the usability or accessibility of the data in the report.There is a spectrum of cancer pathology reporting which is shown in Table I. The range includes simple narrative reporting using a single text field of data without mandatory scientifically validated data elements as defined by the College of American Pathologists (CAP) (level 1 reporting) to sophisticated synoptic reporting with drop down menus, standardized language, discrete data fields, and automated ICD-O and/or SNOMED CT encoding (level 6). In practice most cancer pathology reports lie somewhere in the middle.Cancer pathology reports given in a synoptic format are intuitively easier to decipher than ones that are presented in a narrative or paragraphic style, minimizing the risk of misinterpretation and clinical error. Synoptic reporting can save time since all important diagnostic and prognostic factors are laid out in a list or table with headers and responses rather than being buried in paragraphic text fields. While cancer patholog...

show abstract

“…Recent audits of colorectal cancer and melanoma histopathology reports suggest that the use of a standardized, structured or synoptic template for the reporting of microscopic features improves the overall completeness of reports 10–12 . Karim et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%