Frozen section diagnosis: is there discordance between what pathologists say and what surgeons hear?

Roy S, Parwani AV, Dhir R, Yousem SA, Kelly SM, Pantanowitz L.

Source

3550 Terrace St, A-711 Scaife Hall, Pittsburgh, PA 15261; roys@upmc.edu.

Abstract

Objectives: Communication in various medical settings is subject to misinterpretation. The frozen section (FS) diagnosis in patient care is dependent on successful communication between pathologists and surgeons. However, very few studies looking at FS errors analyzed postanalytic communication issues.

Methods: A total of 300 consecutive cases, in which an FS was performed and corresponding surgical note was available, were studied. The FS diagnosis and surgeon's interpretation were recorded for all cases. Discrepancies were classified as major (clinical impact) or minor (no clinical impact).

Results: We found 8 (2.7%) miscommunications, all with only minor clinical impact. These were attributed mainly to the surgeon's misinterpretation of a deferred diagnosis. Also contributing to miscommunication was the pathologist's use of nonspecific terminology such as "favor" or "scattered."

Conclusions: We found that the rate of miscommunicated FS diagnoses was low at our institution during the period of our study. However, the rate of miscommunication was similar to the much more widely recognized problem of sampling error.

TimAllenMDJD

Wednesday, September 18, 2013