Pathologists can get it right the first time

J Clin Pathol. 2021 May;74(5):271-272. doi: 10.1136/jclinpath-2020-206991. Epub 2020 Nov 18.

Abstract

It is established good practice for histopathologists to obtain a second opinion in difficult cases. However, it is becoming more common for histology material to be reviewed either at the time of reporting (double-reporting) or as part of the preparation for multidisciplinary team meetings. Routine histological review does not provide 'value for money' and could even increase the risk of diagnostic error. The focus should be on error prevention as opposed to error detection. If pathologists get it right the first time, then there would be less need for 'double checking'. Increased subspecialisation could increase diagnostic confidence and reduce error rates. Double-reporting and retrospective review should be limited to selected cases. We describe a protocol for clearly recording the process and outcome of such reviews.

Keywords: diagnosis; health care; neoplasms; pathology; quality assurance; surgical.

Publication types

  • Editorial
  • Comment

MeSH terms

  • Diagnostic Errors
  • Humans
  • Pathologists*
  • Quality Assurance, Health Care*
  • Referral and Consultation
  • Retrospective Studies