Premium
Another quality assurance issue—amended reports: What do we really know about them?
Author(s) -
Stastny Janet F.,
Geisinger Kim R.,
Michael Claire W.,
Raab Stephen S.,
Powers Celeste N.,
Davila Rosa M.
Publication year - 1998
Publication title -
diagnostic cytopathology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.417
H-Index - 65
eISSN - 1097-0339
pISSN - 8755-1039
DOI - 10.1002/(sici)1097-0339(199801)18:1<67::aid-dc11>3.0.co;2-7
Subject(s) - medicine , quality assurance , cytopathology , task force , papanicolaou stain , telephone survey , family medicine , quality (philosophy) , medical education , medical physics , cytology , pathology , philosophy , external quality assessment , cervical cancer , public administration , cancer , marketing , epistemology , political science , business
The Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment (CLIA) of 1988 requires that if a cytology/histology discrepancy is discovered which is significant and affects patient care, an amended report should be issued (Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments, Fed Reg 1992;57:7169). Since little is known about such amended reports, a survey was developed to assess how individuals handle discrepancies. The Quality Assurance Task Force from the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology created a survey to assess these methods and sent it to all of their members. Fifty‐one individuals responded to the survey. Methods vary widely among institutions. On average, 107 cytologic/histologic correlations are performed each month with the discovery of approximately 2 major and 11 minor discrepancies. Thirty‐nine responders utilize written amended reports and telephone clinicians when a major discrepancy is found. Thirty‐eight individuals indicated that their place of employment has a written policy concerning discrepancies. Time spent in quality assurance issues averaged 8 hr per wk for cytotechnologists and 3 hr per wk for pathologists. Although amended reports are required when significant discrepancies are revealed, a standard practice does not exist. Diagn. Cytopathol. 1998;18:67–70. © 1998 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.