ArticleLaboratory medicine2017
A Proposed Set of Metrics to Reduce Patient Safety Risk From Within the Anatomic Pathology Laboratory.
Article in Laboratory medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Navigating Quality in Lean Times: Sustaining Laboratory Standards Amidst Budget Constraints.International journal of laboratory hematology · 2026Review
- Enhancing preanalytic surgical specimen management: experience of a system implementation initiative.Diagnostic pathology · 2025Article
- The slow-paced digital evolution of pathology: lights and shadows from a multifaceted board.Pathologica · 2023Review
- Biosafety and biobanking: Current understanding and knowledge gaps.Biosafety and health · 2021Article
- Process Variation Detection using Missing Data in a Multihospital Community Practice Anatomic Pathology Laboratory.Journal of pathology informatics · 2019Article
- The Value Proposition for Pathologists: A Population Health Approach.Academic pathologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnatomic pathology laboratory workflow consists of 3 major specimen handling processes. Among the workflow are preanalytic, analytic, and postanalytic phases that contain multistep subprocesses with great impact on patient care. A worldwide representation of experts came together to create a system of metrics, as a basis for laboratories worldwide, to help them evaluate and improve specimen handling to reduce patient safety risk.
methodMembers of the Initiative for Anatomic Pathology Laboratory Patient Safety (IAPLPS) pooled their extensive expertise to generate a list of metrics highlighting processes with high and low risk for adverse patient outcomes.
results: Our group developed a universal, comprehensive list of 47 metrics for patient specimen handling in the anatomic pathology laboratory. Steps within the specimen workflow sequence are categorized as high or low risk. In general, steps associated with the potential for specimen misidentification correspond to the high-risk grouping and merit greater focus within quality management systems. Primarily workflow measures related to operational efficiency can be considered low risk.
conclusionOur group intends to advance the widespread use of these metrics in anatomic pathology laboratories to reduce patient safety risk and improve patient care with development of best practices and interlaboratory error reporting programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.