Anatomic pathology quality assurance: Developing an LIS based tracking and documentation module for intradepartmental consultations.

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.

Frozen Section Quality Assurance.

OBJECTIVES: Composite frozen section turnaround time has limited value, precluding assessment of certain processes: slide preparation (technical) and diagnosis (interpretation). We examined whether measuring these elements could identify delays, hypothesizing that longer times were related to (1) inefficient technical processes and (2) case-specific diagnostic challenges. METHODS: Technical and interpretive times were determined for 1,992 specimens submitted for frozen section in 2017; the data were sorted by surgical specialty. Mean and quartile times were determined for each category with all specimens assessed equally, including those with multiple frozen section blocks. RESULTS: Technical times were significantly longer than interpretive times. Specialty grouping facilitated trend identification and enabled assessment of technical and interpretation challenges. We identified technical issues with certain gross specimens involving overdissection and interpretation delays for specific neoplasms and margins. CONCLUSIONS: Measuring technical and interpretative times and subcategorizing by specialty has aided the assessment of frozen section processing in our laboratory, enabling case isolation for process improvement.