The implementation of guidelines and computerised forms improves the completeness of cancer pathology reporting. The CROPS project

Branston, Lucy; Greening, Shirley E.; Newcombe, Robert G.; Daoud, Raouf; Abraham, Jens; Wood, Fiona; Steward, John; Rogers, CA; Williams, Geraint T.

doi:10.1016/s0959-8049(01)00258-1

Cited by 73 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally poor rates of positive reporting of EMVI, peritoneal and CRM involvement are intimately linked to a lower number of nodes found within the NYCRIS data. Proforma reporting has been shown to improve the completeness of pathological reporting (Cross et al, 1998;Branston et al, 2002) but our results indicate significant amounts of key variables were still missing. We believe the use of computer proformas in which all data items had to be completed before a pathologist could finish a report and the careful auditing of pathology reporting against standards is essential.…”

Section: Quality Of Reportingmentioning

confidence: 62%

The validity of the Royal College of Pathologists’ colorectal cancer minimum dataset within a population

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quality of colorectal cancer pathology reports is related to individual patient prognosis and future treatment options. This study sought to validate the prognostic utility of the Royal College of Pathologists minimum pathology dataset (MPD), regarded as the 'gold standard', within a population. Retrospective study of the survival of 5947 surgically resected colorectal cancer patients for whom an MPD had been collected. Variables were related to survival. The study population was representative of the Yorkshire colorectal cancer population. Survival was poorer in older patients and colonic tumours and improved over the study period. Local invasion, total number of lymph nodes retrieved, nodal stage, extramural vascular invasion, peritoneal involvement, distance of invasion beyond the muscularis propria, and in rectal cancers, circumferential resection margin involvement and distance to this margin were all validated as of prognostic significance within a population. Failure to report extramural vascular invasion, peritoneal involvement or circumferential resection margin status was associated with a worse survival than absence of the factor. All variables within the Royal College of Pathologists MPD are of prognostic significance. High-quality pathology reports are essential in providing accurate prognostic information and guiding optimal patient management.

show abstract

Section: Quality Of Reportingmentioning

confidence: 62%

The validity of the Royal College of Pathologists’ colorectal cancer minimum dataset within a population

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4,[23][24][25][26][27] In other specialties, par ticularly in pathology, synoptic reporting has been widely embraced, which has improved interdisciplinary com munication and led to more effective coordination of clinical care for individual patients. [28][29][30] There is wide acceptance of SRs by clinicians who prefer the readability of SRs over NRs. [27][28][29][30] Further structured synoptic reporting results promote quality by standardizing the reporting processes among patients and institutions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of narrative operative reports in pancreatic surgery

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Quality in health care can be evaluated using quality indicators (QIs). Elements contained in the surgical operative report are potential sources for QI data, but little is known about the completeness of the narrative operative report (NR). We evaluated the completeness of the NR for patients undergoing a pancreaticoduodenectomy. Methods:We reviewed NRs for patients undergoing a pancreaticoduodenectomy over a 1-year period. We extracted 79 variables related to patient and narrator characteristics, process of care measures, surgical technique and oncology-related outcomes by document analysis. Data were coded and evaluated for completeness. Results:We analyzed 74 NRs. The median number of variables reported was 43.5 (range 13-54). Variables related to surgical technique were most complete. Process of care and oncology-related variables were often omitted. Completeness of the NR was associated with longer operative duration. Conclusion:The NRs were often incomplete and of poor quality. Important elements, including process of care and oncology-related data, were frequently missing. Thus, the NR is an inadequate data source for QI. Development and use of alternative reporting methods, including standardized synoptic operative reports, should be encouraged to improve documentation of care and serve as a measure of quality of surgical care. Conclusion :Les NO sont souvent incomplètes et leur qualité laisse à désirer. Des éléments importants, dont le protocole opératoire et les données oncologiques, étaient souvent manquants. Ainsi, les NO constituent une source inadéquate de données en ce qui concerne les IQ. Il faudra encourager la mise au point et l'utilisation d'autres types de rapports, dont des synopsis opératoires standardisés, pour mieux documenter les soins chirurgicaux prodigués et pour en évaluer la qualité. Q uality improvement is an important component of health care systems. Quality in health care can be evaluated in terms of the structures, processes and outcomes of care.

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

The implementation of guidelines and computerised forms improves the completeness of cancer pathology reporting. The CROPS project

Cited by 73 publications

References 7 publications

The validity of the Royal College of Pathologists’ colorectal cancer minimum dataset within a population

The validity of the Royal College of Pathologists’ colorectal cancer minimum dataset within a population

Quality of narrative operative reports in pancreatic surgery

Standardized synoptic cancer pathology reporting: A population‐based approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About