ABSTRACT
AIM: we describe our experience of validating departmental pathologists for digital pathology reporting, based on the UK Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) "Best Practice Recommendations for Implementing Digital Pathology (DP)," at a large academic teaching hospital that scans 100% of its surgical workload. We focus on Stage 2 of validation (prospective experience) prior to full validation sign-off. METHODS AND RESULTS: twenty histopathologists completed Stage 1 of the validation process and subsequently completed Stage 2 validation, prospectively reporting a total of 3777 cases covering eight specialities. All cases were initially viewed on digital whole slide images (WSI) with relevant parameters checked on glass slides, and discordances were reconciled before the case was signed out. Pathologists kept an electronic log of the cases, the preferred reporting modality used, and their experiences. At the end of each validation, a summary was compiled and reviewed with a mentor. This was submitted to the DP Steering Group who assessed the scope of cases and experience before sign-off for full validation. A total of 1.3% (49/3777) of the cases had a discordance between WSI and glass slides. A total of 61% (30/49) of the discordances were categorised as a minor error in a supplementary parameter without clinical impact. The most common reasons for diagnostic discordances across specialities included identification and grading of dysplasia, assessment of tumour invasion, identification of small prognostic or diagnostic objects, interpretation of immunohistochemistry/special stains, and mitotic count assessment. Pathologists showed similar mean diagnostic confidences (on Likert scale from 0 to 7) with a mean of 6.8 on digital and 6.9 on glass slide reporting. CONCLUSION: we describe one of the first real-world experiences of a department-wide effort to implement, validate, and roll out digital pathology reporting by applying the RCPath Recommendations for Implementing DP. We have shown a very low rate of discordance between WSI and glass slides.
ABSTRACT
There has been particular interest in the deployment of digital pathology (DP) and artificial intelligence (AI) in the diagnosis of prostate cancer, but little is known about the views of the public on their use. Prostate Cancer UK supporters were invited to an online survey which included quantitative and qualitative questions exploring views on the use of DP and AI in histopathological assessment. A total of 1276 responses to the survey were analysed (response rate 12.5%). Most respondents were supportive of DP (87%, 1113/1276) and of testing AI in clinical practice as a diagnostic adjunct (83%, 1058/1276). Respondents saw DP as potentially increasing workflow efficiency, facilitating research, education/training and fostering clinical discussions between clinician and patient. Some respondents raised concerns regarding data security, reliability and the need for human oversight. Among those who were unsure about AI, information was requested regarding its performance and others wanted to defer the decision to use it to an expert. Although most are in favour of its use, some are unsure, and their concerns could be addressed with more information or better communication. A small minority (<1%) are not in favour of the testing of the use of AI in histopathology for reasons which are not easily addressed.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: A glass ceiling effect exists for women in male-dominated professions. Recent studies also show a glass-cliff effect where senior women can more easily fall from positions of leadership. Transplantation remains a male-dominated specialty. This study investigated gender and the perception of adverse clinical incidents in transplantation. METHODS: Prospective randomised web-based survey involving five clinical scenarios presenting two versions of episodes with errors or mistakes, with either a male or female as a randomly named protagonist (Set1 and Set2). To address unconscious bias, the study was described as examining actions following clinical adverse incidents in transplantation. Each scenario was followed by 2 closed questions: (1) clinical performance rating and (2) selection of action required. Reasoning was invited (open-text comments). Responses were analyzed using quantitative and qualitative methods. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-one invitees responded; 134 completed questionnaires. There were no statistically significant differences (P > 0.05) in responses between sets for performance ratings or recommended actions. However, for "first solo laparoscopic surgery" scenario, there was some indication that "No Action" was more likely if surgeon was male (P = 0.056). Male responses rated female performance as significantly worse (P = 0.035) for the laboratory-based scenario. One hundred two participants provided open-text comments. Thematic analysis identified 7 themes. Acceptable levels of risk theme demonstrated engendered leadership beliefs, that is, when clinical judgment proved incorrect, males described as forceful but females as needing support. In cases where things went wrong, respondents were more likely to comment females should not have decided to proceed. CONCLUSIONS: While gender may no longer be an overt issue in perceived performance of senior staff in transplantation, respondents' use of language and their choice of words display elements of unconscious (covert) engendered views.
