[Autopsies at the boundary between pathology and forensic medicine : Suggestions for interdisciplinary cooperation]. / Obduktionen im Grenzbereich zwischen Pathologie und Rechtsmedizin : Vorschläge zur interdisziplinären Kooperation.

There are many differences between forensic medicine and pathology but also many similarities, as they share a common basis. In this article the characteristics of the forensic autopsy and it's legal foundations are presented. Furthermore, possibilities are discussed for a cooperation between forensic medicine and pathology to increase the rate of autopsies. This could contribute to the legal certainty, to the quality assurance and to the training of physicians.

Disruptive Influences on Research in Academic Pathology Departments: Proposed Changes to the Common Rule Governing Informed Consent for Research Use of Biospecimens and to Rules Governing Return of Research Results.

Academic pathology departments will be dramatically affected by proposed United States federal government regulatory initiatives. Pathology research will be substantially altered if proposed changes to the Common Rule (Code of Federal Regulations: Protection of Human Subjects title 45 CFR 46) and regulations governing the return of individual research results are approved and finalized, even more so now that the Precision Medicine initiative has been launched. Together, these changes are disruptive influences on academic pathology research as we know it, straining limited resources and compromising advances in diagnostic and academic pathology. Academic research pathologists will be challenged over the coming years and must demonstrate leadership to ensure the continued availability of and the ethical use of research pathology specimens.

How concerns and experiences with medical malpractice affect dermatopathologists' perceptions of their diagnostic practices when interpreting cutaneous melanocytic lesions.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify characteristics associated with past malpractice lawsuits and how malpractice concerns may affect interpretive practices. METHODS: We surveyed 207 of 301 (68.8%) eligible dermatopathologists who interpret melanocytic skin lesions in 10 states. The survey assessed dermatopathologists' demographic and clinical practice characteristics, perceptions of how medical malpractice concerns could influence their interpretive practices, and past malpractice lawsuits. RESULTS: Of dermatopathologists, 33% reported past malpractice experiences. Factors associated with being sued included older age (57 vs 48 years, P < .001), lack of board certification or fellowship training in dermatopathology (76.5% vs 53.2%, P = .001), and greater number of years interpreting melanocytic lesions (>20 years: 52.9% vs 20.1%, P < .001). Of participants, 64% reported being moderately or extremely confident in their melanocytic interpretations. Although most dermatopathologists believed that malpractice concerns increased their likelihood of ordering specialized pathology tests, obtaining recuts, and seeking a second opinion, none of these practices were associated with past malpractice. Most dermatopathologists reported concerns about potential harms to patients that may result from their assessments of melanocytic lesions. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of this study include lack of validation of and details about the malpractice suits experienced by participating dermatopathologists. In addition, the study assessed perceptions of practice rather than actual practices that might be associated with malpractice incidents. CONCLUSIONS: Most dermatopathologists reported apprehension about how malpractice affects their clinical practice and are concerned about patient safety irrespective of whether they had actually experienced a medical malpractice suit.

[The role and place of pathology services in ensuring and improving the quality of medical care: Organizational and legal aspects].

The paper considers the legal and organizational issues of the activity of pathology services in improving medical care. It shows the main (diagnostic and medico-organizational) areas of pathology work to improve the quality of medical care.

State restrictions on the interstate practice of dermatopathology are unconstitutional: the tissue is the issue.

The regulation of the interstate practice of dermatopathology, teledermatopathology and teledermatology is the subject of discussion in many recent articles. Laws and regulations in many states complicate such interstate practice, requiring the dermatopathologist to be licensed in the state where the biopsy is taken if the dermatopathologist practices in and is licensed in a different state. To date, this discussion has been from the viewpoint of the dermatopathologist or dermatologist. But, when seen from the patient's viewpoint, its apparent that most such state regulation may be void as an unconstitutional infringement of a patient's fundamental right of unrestricted interstate travel under the Constitution of the United States of America.

Pathology and medical malpractice. Academic and trainee empirical review of cases by State of Texas physicians.

OBJECTIVES: This study examines whether the assumptions that pathologists understand the medical malpractice negligence rule and have a clear single standard of care are reasonable. METHODS: Two hundred eighty-one Texas academic pathologists and trainees were presented 10 actual pathology malpractice cases from publicly available sources, representing the tort system's signal. RESULTS: Of the respondents, 55.52% were trainees, and 44.48% were pathology faculty. Only in two cases did more than 50% of respondents correctly identify the behavior of pathologists as defined by legal outcomes. In only half of the cases did more than 50% of pathologists concur with the jury verdict. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides further evidence that physicians do not understand the legal rule of negligence. Pathologists have a poor understanding of negligence and cannot accurately predict a jury verdict. There is significant divergence from the single standard of care assumption. Alternative methods to provide appropriate compensation and to establish physician accountability should be explored. Additional education about medical negligence is needed.

Crossing boundaries: a comprehensive survey of medical licensing laws and guidelines regulating the interstate practice of pathology.

In the United States, recent judicial interpretation of interstate licensure laws has found pathologists guilty of malpractice and, more importantly, the criminal practice of medicine without a license. These judgments against pathologists highlight the need for a timely and comprehensive survey of licensure requirements and laws regulating the interstate practice of pathology. For all 50 states, each state medical practice act and state medical board website was reviewed. In addition, each medical board was directly contacted by electronic mail, telephone, or US registered mail for information regarding specific legislation or guidelines related to the interstate practice of pathology. On the basis of this information, states were grouped according to similarities in legislation and medical board regulations. This comprehensive survey has determined that states define the practice of pathology on the basis of the geographic location of the patient at the time of surgery or phlebotomy. The majority of states (n=32) and the District of Columbia allow for a physician with an out-of-state license to perform limited consultation to a physician with the specific state license. Several states (n=5) prohibit physicians from consultation without a license for the specific state. Overall, these results reveal the heterogeneity of licensure requirements between states. Pathologists who either practice in multiple states, send cases to out-of-state consultants, or serve as consultants themselves should familiarize themselves with the medical licensure laws of the states from which they receive or send cases.

"Apologies" from pathologists: why, when, and how to say "sorry" after committing a medical error.

How pathologists communicate an error is complicated by the absence of a direct physician-patient relationship. Using 2 examples, we elaborate on how other physician colleagues routinely play an intermediary role in our day-to-day transactions and in the communication of a pathologist error to the patient. The concept of a "dual-hybrid" mind-set in the intermediary physician and its role in representing the pathologists' viewpoint adequately is considered. In a dual-hybrid mind-set, the intermediary physician can align with the patients' philosophy and like the patient, consider the smallest deviation from norm to be an error. Alternatively, they might embrace the traditional physician philosophy and communicate only those errors that resulted in a clinically inappropriate outcome. Neither may effectively reflect the pathologists' interests. We propose that pathologists develop strategies to communicate errors that include considerations of meeting with the patients directly. Such interactions promote healing for the patient and are relieving to the well-intentioned pathologist.

The approaches of physicians working in the field of pathology regarding forensic pathology practice and the training process.

OBJECTIVE: Forensic autopsies are performed by the forensic medicine department and the microscopic examination processes by pathology specialists within the forensic medicine practice in Turkey. This disconnection in the process raises problems in the training of both branches. The aim of this study was to determine the awareness of pathology staff on forensic medicine practices and responsibilities and their opinion on the pathology training model in the forensic medicine specialty and to discuss the matter within the framework of the present situation and global applications. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A 15-item questionnaire form distributed to the participant physicians during registration at the 21st National Pathology Congress held in 2011 was evaluated. RESULTS: 94 participants responded. A negative opinion was expressed by 72% about the interest in the general post-mortem process. The view that pathology specialists should undergo a separate training to perform autopsies was predominant and there was a general lack of interest in all kinds of autopsy processes. The percentage who said they knew the legal responsibility of a pathology specialist regarding forensic autopsies correctly was 37%. The questions "what are the necessary factors to contribute to the pathology training in forensic medicine" and "if anything is required, which of them would take priority" were respectively answered as "for me to be interested (46%)" and "a system guaranteeing that training will always be given by pathology specialists (67%)". Despite the possibility of becoming a forensic medicine specialist in two years, the mean answer score of the participants to the phrase "I do not consider becoming a forensic medicine specialist" was 4.1 (out of 5). CONCLUSION: A reluctance among the pathologists in our country was seen regarding forensic medicine specialists being able to perform post-mortem microscopic examination. However, despite their legal responsibilities, their interest in forensic pathology practice was low. There seems to be rational factor that would increase this interest in the near future. Cooperation is necessary to enable forensic medicine specialists to perform post-mortem pathology procedures. This cooperation should be based on improving the training of pathology research assistants.

[Post mortem dissections -the legal status in Israel].

Forensic medicine is the application of science to the medical disciplines to answer questions related to criminal law. Most forensic practitioners are physicians with expertise in pathology. In the field of post mortem surgeries, the extensive area of the encounter between the law and medicine is compLicated. The doctor who is responsible for the procedure needs to take decisions on the cause of death, as well as considerations of Legal and religious issues. Furthermore, the doctor needs to take into consideration the requests of the family of the deceased. This article aims to reveal the legal, medical and moral complexity of post mortem surgeries, especially in the last few years during which new imaging techniques developed may pose as reasonable alternatives for such surgeries.

[Current medicolegal and ethical issues in pathology]. / Aktuelle medizinrechtliche und -ethische Herausforderungen der Pathologie.

The increase in density of information available in relation to patients and research participants, in particular in the context of genetic diagnostics and analysis, results in an increased potential for uncovering details which were unexpected but are of particular significance for the patient. Deciding how this information is dealt with and who is entitled to receive this information, is a medicolegal and ethical balancing act. Incidental findings and the challenges posed by the advent of personalised medicine are but two areas which increasingly impact medical disciplines that do not conventionally work directly with patients. Both areas raise questions of what is legally required and morally necessary. The authors briefly sketch these two areas and the medicolegal and ethical implications for diagnostics and research in pathology.