ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2022
Anatomic pathology quality assurance: Developing an LIS based tracking and documentation module for intradepartmental consultations.
Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: An electronic intradepartmental consultation system for anatomic pathology (AP) was conceived and developed in the laboratory information system (LIS) in 2019. Previously, all surgical pathology intradepartmental consultative activities were initiated and documented with paper forms which circulated with the pertinent microscopic slides and were eventually filed. In this study, we discuss the implementation and utilization of an electronic intradepartmental AP consultation system. Methods: Workflows and procedures were developed to organize intradepartmental surgical pathology consultations from the beginning to the end point of the consultative activities entirely using a paperless system that resided in the LIS. Results: The electronic consult system allowed electronic documentation of all steps of intradepartmental consultative activities. The system provided tracking ability for consulted cases and improved access to consult discussion for all departmental personnel, staff, and trainees. Consultation work queue was created for each pathologist and a summary of individual consultative workload was possible. Documentation of anatomic pathology quality assurance for intradepartmental consultative activity was easily assessed. Conclusions: The electronic intradepartmental consult system has allowed our department to electronically track intradepartmental consult cases, store the consultative opinion text with the case, record the pathologists involved, and document the consultation for internal quality assurance review as well as for accrediting organizations. Summarization of pathologist workload related to consultative activity was quantifiable and optimization of the consultative process was maximized for education in an academic setting.
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.