RESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
Digital pathology (DP) offers potential for time efficiency gains over an analog workflow however, to date, evidence supporting this claim is relatively lacking. Studies available concentrate on specific workflow points such as diagnostic reporting time, rather than overall efficiencies in slide logistics that might be expected. This is in part a result of the complexity and variation in analog working, and the challenge therefore in capturing this. We have utilized RFID technology to conduct a novel study capturing the movement of diagnostic cases within the analog pathway in a large teaching hospital setting, thus providing benchmark data for potential efficiency gains with DP. This technology overcomes the need to manually record data items and has facilitated the capture of both the physical journey of a case and the time associated with relevant components of the analog pathway predicted to be redundant in the digital setting. RFID tracking of 1,173 surgical pathology cases and over 30 staff in an analog cellular pathology workflow illustrates the complexity of the physical movement of slides within the department, which impacts on case traceability within the system. Detailed analysis of over 400 case journeys highlights redundant periods created by batching of slides at workflow points, including potentially 2-3 h for a case to become available for reporting after release from the lab, and variable lag-times prior to collection for reporting, and provides an illustration of patterns of lab and pathologist working within the analog setting. This study supports the challenge in evidencing efficiency gains to be anticipated with DP in the context of the variation and complexity of the analog pathway, but also evidences the efficiency gains that may be expected through a greater understanding of patterns of working and movement of cases. Such data may benefit other departments building a business case for DP.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In this article we share our experience of creating a digital pathology (DP) supraregional germ cell tumour service, including full digitisation of the central laboratory. METHODS: DP infrastructure (Philips) was deployed across our hospital network to allow full central digitisation with partial digitisation of two peripheral sites in the supraregional testis germ cell tumour network. We used a survey-based approach to capture the quantitative and qualitative experiences of the multidisciplinary teams involved. RESULTS: The deployment enabled case sharing for the purposes of diagnostic reporting, second opinion, and supraregional review. DP was seen as a positive step forward for the departments involved, and for the wider germ cell tumour network, and was completed without significant issues. Whilst there were challenges, the transition to DP was regarded as worthwhile, and examples of benefits to patients are already recognised. CONCLUSION: Pathology networks, including highly specialised services, such as in this study, are ideally suited to be digitised. We highlight many of the benefits but also the challenges that must be overcome for such clinical transformation. Overall, from the survey, the change was seen as universally positive for our service and highlights the importance of engagement of the whole team to achieve success.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Digital pathology has the potential to revolutionize the way clinical diagnoses are made while improving safety and quality. With a few notable exceptions in the UK, few National Health Service (NHS) departments have deployed digital pathology platforms. Thus, in the next few years, many departments are anticipated to undergo the transition to digital pathology. In this period of transition, capturing attitudes and experiences can elucidate issues to be addressed and foster collaboration between NHS Trusts. This study aims to qualitatively ascertain the benefits and challenges of transitioning to digital pathology from the perspectives of pathologists and biomedical scientists in a department about to undergo the transition from diagnostic reporting via traditional microscopy to digital pathology. METHODS: A focus group discussion was held in the setting of a large NHS teaching hospital's cellular pathology department which was on the brink of transitioning to digital pathology. A set of open questions were developed and posed to a group of pathologists and biomedical scientists in a focus group setting. Notes of the discussion were made along with an audio recording with permission. The discussion was subsequently turned into a series of topic headings and analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: Identified benefits of digital pathology included enhanced collaboration, teaching, cost savings, research, growth of specialty, multidisciplinary teams, and patient-centered care. Barriers to transitioning to digital pathology included standardization, validation, national implementation, storage and backups, training, logistical implementation, cost-effectiveness, privacy, and legality. CONCLUSION: Many benefits of digital pathology were identified, but key barriers need to be addressed in order to fully implement digital pathology on a trust and national level.
