No abstract

We used data management software to compare pathology report data concerning regional lymph node sampling for colorectal carcinoma from 2 institutions using different dissection methods. Data were retrieved from 2 disparate anatomic pathology information systems for all cases of colorectal carcinoma in 2003 involving the ascending and descending colon. Initial sorting of the data included overall lymph node recovery to assess differences between the dissection methods at the 2 institutions. Additional segregation of the data was used to challenge the application's capability of accurately addressing the complexity of the process. This software approach can be used to evaluate data from disparate computer systems, and we demonstrate how an automated function can enable institutions to compare internal pathologic assessment processes and the results of those comparisons. The use of this process has future implications for pathology quality assurance in other areas.

We used data management software to compare pathology report data concerning regional lymph node sampling for colorectal carcinoma from 2 institutions using different dissection methods. Data were retrieved from 2 disparate anatomic pathology information systems for all cases of colorectal carcinoma in 2003 involving the ascending and descending colon. Initial sorting of the data included overall lymph node recovery to assess differences between the dissection methods at the 2 institutions. Additional segregation of the data was used to challenge the application's capability of accurately addressing the complexity of the process. This software approach can be used to evaluate data from disparate computer systems, and we demonstrate how an automated function can enable institutions to compare internal pathologic assessment processes and the results of those comparisons. The use of this process has future implications for pathology quality assurance in other areas.

No abstract