Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28340232›Full record

ArticleLaboratory medicine2017

A Proposed Set of Metrics to Reduce Patient Safety Risk From Within the Anatomic Pathology Laboratory.

Peter Banks, Richard Brown, Alex Laslowski, Yvonne Daniels, Phil Branton, John Carpenter, Richard Zarbo, Ramses Forsyth, Yan-Hui Liu, Shane Kohl and 4 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Peter BanksMedical Affairs, Ventana Medical Systems Inc., Tucson, AZ.
Richard BrownLaboratory Services, Memorial Hermann Southeast Hospital, Houston, TX.
Alex LaslowskiDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Monash Medical Centre, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Yvonne DanielsDepartment of Pathology, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.
Phil BrantonBiorepositories and Biospecimens Research Branch, Cancer Diagnosis Program, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
John CarpenterDivision of Pathology, Puget Sound Gastroenterology Medical Center, Lynnwood, WA.
Richard ZarboPathology and Laboratory Medicine, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI.
Ramses ForsythDepartment of Pathology, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussels, Brussels, Belgium.
Yan-Hui LiuDepartment of Pathology, Guangdong General Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Science Guangdong Province, China.
Shane KohlAnatomic & Clinical Pathology, Nebraska Methodist Health System, Inc, Omaha, NE.
Joachim DieboldLeiter Departement Institute, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Shinobu MasudaDepartment of Pathology, Nihon University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Tim PlummerOperations Division, Mayo Clinic, Mayo College of Medicine, Rochester, MN.
Eslie DennisMedical Affairs, Ventana Medical Systems Inc., Tucson, AZ.
East Carolina University · USHenry Ford Health System · USNihon University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

HumansLaboratoriesPathology, ClinicalPatient SafetyQuality Assurance, Health Careanatomic pathologybest practicespatient safetyworkflow metrics

Identifiers

PMID28340232
PMCPMC5424539
OpenAlexW2594991832

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.