Rickert R R
Clin Lab Med. 1986 Dec;6(4):697-706.
Comprehensive quality assurance in anatomic pathology must address several levels of laboratory operation: procedural/technical issues, the quality of the diagnostic report, and the medical consultative role of the pathologist. Procedural/technical quality control in anatomic pathology differs very little from that practiced in the various sections of clinical pathology. Assessment of the quality of the final report is a major responsibility of the pathologist who renders the diagnosis. Guidelines that systematically address such issues as specimen handling and the content of the diagnostic report are effective in promoting consistency, completeness, and the clinical relevance of the information provided. Quality assessment of the pathologist's consultative role is more difficult to define and implement. However, systematic evaluation and correlative review of all available diagnostic information, appropriate use of consultation and case review, and participation in continuing education and self-assessment activities all may contribute to and help document the quality of services provided. It is important to emphasize the value of flexibility in designing a comprehensive quality assurance program for anatomic pathology. Departments differ markedly in characteristics such as staff size, subspecialty interests, teaching commitments, and volume and type of case material. Nevertheless, the general principles of written organization, systematic monitoring, and documentation of adherence to the program should be followed. Just as the design of the program may benefit from flexibility, the laboratory should be prepared to modify its quality control and assurance techniques and implement corrective measures should surveillance identify problems such as frequent typographic errors, inadequate diagnostic information, or deterioration in correlation between frozen section and final diagnoses. The ultimate objective of all of these efforts is to provide the referring physician with an accurate, clinically relevant diagnostic report, thereby enhancing the pathologist's role as a valued medical consultant.
程序/技术问题、诊断报告的质量以及病理学家的医学咨询作用。解剖病理学中的程序/技术质量控制与临床病理学各部门所采用的质量控制差异很小。对最终报告质量的评估是做出诊断的病理学家的一项主要职责。系统地解决诸如标本处理和诊断报告内容等问题的指南,对于提高所提供信息的一致性、完整性和临床相关性是有效的。对病理学家咨询作用的质量评估更难界定和实施。然而,对所有可用诊断信息进行系统评估和相关审查、恰当地利用会诊和病例复查,以及参与继续教育和自我评估活动,都可能有助于并证明所提供服务的质量。强调在设计解剖病理学全面质量保证计划时灵活性的价值很重要。各部门在人员规模、亚专业兴趣、教学任务以及病例材料的数量和类型等特征方面存在显著差异。尽管如此,仍应遵循书面组织、系统监测以及记录对该计划的遵守情况的一般原则。正如计划的设计可能受益于灵活性一样,实验室应准备好修改其质量控制和保证技术,并在监测发现诸如频繁的排版错误、诊断信息不足或冰冻切片与最终诊断之间的相关性变差等问题时实施纠正措施。所有这些努力的最终目标是为转诊医生提供一份准确的、与临床相关的诊断报告,从而增强病理学家作为有价值的医学顾问的作用。