Difference between revisions of "Quality"

From Libre Pathology
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 99: Line 99:


Note:
Note:
*#1 and #2 can be examined quantified in any number of ways.
*1 and 2 can be examined/quantified in any number of ways.
*''Error'', in the context of a measurement, has to be defined.
*''Error'', in the context of a measurement, has to be defined.



Revision as of 06:04, 30 January 2012

Quality, in pathology, has got a lot of attention lately because there have been high profile screw-ups that lead to significant harm.[1][2]

General

The keys to quality are understanding the:

  1. Needs of the stakeholders (surgeons, oncologists, patients, other pathologists, the public at large).
  2. Processes.
  3. Developing measures of quality.
  4. Tracking the measures of quality & assessing their validity.
  5. Understanding the causes of failures/adverse events in the context of the processes.

Analysis

Overview

Quality issues can be examined in a number of different ways.

Finding a problem:

  • Root cause analysis.

Anticipating problems:

  • Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA).

General error analysis

Pathology errors happen any time from when the lab gets the specimen until after the report is issued.

When errors happen:

  • Work-up the problem.
    • Where did the error occur? Pathologist error?
  • Talk to the clinician.
    • If it is a critical diagnosis contact the most-responsible physician immediately... if they are unreachable call the physician on-call for the most-responsible physician... if the patient is out-of-town you may have to coordinate with the local emergency department.
  • Talk to the chief of pathology.
  • Incident report.
  • Reconstruct error.
    • Was it a specimen mix-up?
      • Is there another error?
  • Amend the report(s).
  • Remedy the source of error.

A common way to break down error analysis is:

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Errors in pathology
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Pre-analytical errors
 
 
Analytical errors
 
 
Post-analytical errors

Pre-analytic errors

  • Container mix-up - pre-lab & in-lab.
  • Block mix-up.
  • Slide mix-up - labels wrong.
  • Poor quality slides (fixation, processing, staining).
  • Lost specimen - can be potentially anywhere in the process.

Analytic errors

  • Interpretation wrong.
    • Factors:
      • Difficult case.
      • Technical factors (quality of slides).
      • Lack of clinical history.

Post-analytic errors

  • Wrong case signed-out.
  • Filing problem/lost report.
  • Interpretation of report problem (poorly written report, misinterpretation).

Error reduction

Various strategies can be employed:[3]

  • Training of staff - on error handling.
  • Computer order entry.
    • Avoid duplication fatigue.
    • Quick correlation with several identifying features.
      • Full name, sex, date of birth -- these all appear when one opens a case.
  • Barcode use.
    • Avoid transcription errors.
  • Clinical information entry required.
    • Allow correlation with test.
      • The interpretation may differ if the history says "screening coloscopy" versus "large cecal mass, anemia and weight loss" versus "breast cancer".

Other strategies:

  • Statistical process control.

Sources of error

  • "Human error".
    • Training.
    • Work flow.
  • Process gaps.
    • Process control.
    • Lack of redundancy.


Biopsy size

Very small tissue fragments are associated with a decreased diagnostic yield and an increased diagnostic uncertainty.

Measures of quality

Any number of parameters can be used to measure quality. The when, where and how-often something is measured depends on the value-added.

General measures of quality

There are really only two:

  1. Timeliness, i.e. turn-around time (TAT).
  2. Error rate.

Note:

  • 1 and 2 can be examined/quantified in any number of ways.
  • Error, in the context of a measurement, has to be defined.

Smaller categories

Smaller categories - errors:[4]

  • Analytic: specimen identification & transport.
  • Preanalytic/analytic: tissue processing, e.g. fixation, blocking, embedding, sectioning, staining.
  • Analytic: interpretation.
  • Postanalytic: reporting/report integrity.
Individual measures

Specific measures:[4]

  • Preanalytic:
    • Identification - numbers match requisition.
    • Appropriate container.
  • Analytic:
    • Mislabeling.
    • Interpretation errors - based on:
      • Internal review.
        • Cytology-histology correlation.
        • Biopsy-resection correlation.
        • Frozen section-permanent section correlation.
        • Internal comparisons, e.g. ASCUS/LSIL between pathologists.
      • External review.
        • External standards/expected rate.
    • Amended reports - captures several of the above.
  • Postanalytic:
    • Completeness of report.
    • Critical diagnosis timely?
    • Report delivered to appropriate person?

Immunohistochemistry

Work-up of suspected IHC problems:

  • Review controls (internal and external).
    • Isolated to case vs. larger problem?
      • Discuss with lab/make other pathologists aware of the issue.
  • Repeat test - to identify the cause.

IHC process:

  1. Ischemia time - warm ischemia, preparation of specimen.
  2. Fixation - under, over, defective fixative, not enough fixative.
  3. Processing prior to antibody binding, usu. heating (antigen retrieval).
  4. Antibody-antigen binding.
  5. Reporter molecule binding.
  6. Counterstaining.
  7. Interpretation problem.
    • Known/expected epitope cross-reactions, e.g. CMV & HSV.[5]
    • Unknown/unexpected epitope cross-reactions.

Notes:

  • Problems can arise at any step.

Classification of IHC tests

IHC tests are classified in a paper by Torlakovic et al.:[6]

  • Class I:
    • Adjunct to histomorphology.
    • Examples: CD45, S-100.
  • Class II:
    • Considered independent of the other information in the pathology report; thus, cannot be derived from other information in the report.
    • Used directly for treatment decisions.
    • Examples: ER, PR, HER2.

The implication of irregularies in the different classes are different. Problems in Class II tests are potentially more severe, as there is no internal control.

Other

Failure-potential analysis

Adapted from Ullman:[7]

  1. Identify potential individual failures.
  2. Identify the consequences of those failures.
  3. Identify how the individual failures can arise.
  4. Identify the corrective action.

See also

References

  1. URL: http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/goudge/index.html. Accessed on: 1 March 2011.
  2. Judicial inquiry probes faulty breast cancer tests. CBC website. URL: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cancer/inquiry.html. Accessed on: 30 January 2012.
  3. Fabbretti, G. (Jun 2010). "Risk management: correct patient and specimen identification in a surgical pathology laboratory. The experience of Infermi Hospital, Rimini, Italy.". Pathologica 102 (3): 96-101. PMID 21171512.
  4. 4.0 4.1 Nakhleh, RE. (Nov 2009). "Core components of a comprehensive quality assurance program in anatomic pathology.". Adv Anat Pathol 16 (6): 418-23. doi:10.1097/PAP.0b013e3181bb6bf7. PMID 19851132.
  5. Balachandran, N.; Oba, DE.; Hutt-Fletcher, LM. (Apr 1987). [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC254073 URL = http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC254073/?tool=pubmed/ "Antigenic cross-reactions among herpes simplex virus types 1 and 2, Epstein-Barr virus, and cytomegalovirus."]. J Virol 61 (4): 1125-35. PMC [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC254073 URL = http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC254073/?tool=pubmed 254073 URL = http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC254073/?tool=pubmed]. PMID 3029407. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC254073 URL = http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC254073/?tool=pubmed/.
  6. Torlakovic, EE.; Riddell, R.; Banerjee, D.; El-Zimaity, H.; Pilavdzic, D.; Dawe, P.; Magliocco, A.; Barnes, P. et al. (Mar 2010). "Canadian Association of Pathologists-Association canadienne des pathologistes National Standards Committee/Immunohistochemistry: best practice recommendations for standardization of immunohistochemistry tests.". Am J Clin Pathol 133 (3): 354-65. doi:10.1309/AJCPDYZ1XMF4HJWK. PMID 20154273.
  7. Ullman, David G. (1997). The mechanical design process. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.. ISBN 0-07-065756-4.