Utility of an infectious and tropical disease histopathology diagnostic review service
- Resource Type
- Authors
- Sebastian Lucas; Stephen L. Walker; Michael Brown; Sum Yu Pansy Yue; Peter L. Chiodini; Ula Mahadeva
- Source
- Journal of clinical pathology. 73(12)
- Subject
- medicine.medical_specialty
Infectious Disease Medicine
Quality Assurance, Health Care
Laboratory management
business.industry
Cytodiagnosis
Significant difference
Tropical disease
General Medicine
medicine.disease
Communicable Diseases
Pathology and Forensic Medicine
Infectious disease (medical specialty)
Internal medicine
Significant error
Referral centre
London
medicine
Humans
Histopathology
Diagnostic Errors
business
Referral and Consultation
Retrospective Studies
- Language
- ISSN
- 1472-4146
AimTo assess the utility of a London-based infectious and tropical disease histopathology diagnostic review service.MethodsThe original and specialist review histopathology reports of 457 samples from over 3 years of referrals were compared retrospectively.ResultsOverall 329 (72.0%) showed no significant difference; 34 (7.4%) showed a non-clinically significant difference; and 94 (20.6%) showed a clinically significant difference. Of the 94 clinically significant discrepancies, 46 (48.9%) were incorrectly suspected infections; 19 (20.2%) were missed infections; 8 (8.5%) were different infections; and in 20 (21.3%), the specialist review yielded more specific identification of an organism or a more correct assessment of its viability.ConclusionsA review of histopathology cases by an infectious disease (ID) histopathology referral centre has yielded a 20.6% clinically significant error rate. Measures to improve training in ID histopathology in the UK are discussed.