A survey of general practitioners' views on autopsy reports.

Karunaratne, S; Benbow, Emyr W.

doi:10.1136/jcp.50.7.548

Cited by 21 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Information regarding sudden unexpected deaths are often difficult to obtain, but may be of great value to clinicians and for the bereaved relatives. In one large questionnaire study, 90% of GPs found an attached autopsy report useful and agreed that autopsies revealed lesions not detected in life 7. A considerable proportion also found the cause of death surprising and a significant number felt the report would modify their future clinical management.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Referral for autopsies: analysis of 651 consecutive deaths in one general practice

Khunti

2000

Postgraduate Medical Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Autopsies represent a key instrument in educating doctors and may aid quality assurance for primary and secondary care. This study shows that only a few patients have an autopsy, of which the majority are carried out at the request of the coroner for medicolegal reasons. Better education and communication between general practitioners, hospital clinicians, pathologists, and coroners may increase the rate of autopsies. (Postgrad Med J 2000;76:415-416)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Referral for autopsies: analysis of 651 consecutive deaths in one general practice

Khunti

2000

Postgraduate Medical Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In 1978 Roberts 49 summarized 58 papers to attest the value and importance of autopsy, and, years later, laymen, 62 pathologists 61,63 medical students 13 and physicians 9 all agree on the benefits of autopsies. Autopsy remains a vital tool in gaining knowledge about diseases, 17,27,36 and is a teaching tool in education 17 as well as a contributing tool to quality monitoring. 8,75 General practitioners indicate that autopsy results do indeed modify their future clinical practice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…8,75 General practitioners indicate that autopsy results do indeed modify their future clinical practice. 36 For epidemiological purposes autopsy gives precise information about the causes of death and contributes to an accurate monitoring of disease prevalence. 57 In veterinary medicine, too, there are surveys stressing the relevance of postmortem examination as a crucial part of quality monitoring and education.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Correlation of Clinical and Pathological Diagnoses in Cats and Dogs

Schertenleib¹,

Pospischil²,

Hässig³

et al. 2016

Journal of Comparative Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Der Vergleich der klinischen und pathologischen Diagnose ist Voraussetzung für die Qualitätskontrolle, wird aber in der Veterinärmedizin nur selten gemacht. Für je 1000, an der Universität Zürich, untersuchte und sezierte Hunde und Katzen wurden das Vorkommen und die Übereinstimmung der für den Tod verantwortlichen Diagnose retrospektiv untersucht und mögliche Einflussfaktoren evaluiert. Bei 5.8% der Katzen und 5.2% der Hunde wurde keine Diagnose gestellt; bei 2.6% bzw. 3.6% der Fälle wurde nur eine klinische und bei 17.8% bzw. 11.2% nur eine pathologische Diagnose gefunden. Von den 73.9% Katzen und 79.8% Hunden mit beiden Diagnosen, stimmten diese in 38.3% und 36.2% total und in 17.9% bzw. 16.0% gar nicht überein. Die verbleibenden Fälle (43.8% und 47.8%) wurden durch die Sektion in verschiedenem Ausmaß spezifiziert. Bei beiden Spezies hatten die Art des Todes, die klinische Abteilung die das Tier zur Sektion sendete und die Qualität der Sektionsanamnese sowie bei Hunden zusätzlich die Zeitdauer zwischen Tod und Sektion, einen Einfluss auf das Vorkommen der Diagnosen. Hingegen beeinflussten das primär betroffene Organsystem und die der Diagnose zugrunde liegende Pathophysiologie bei beiden Spezies die Übereinstimmung am meisten. Deshalb liefert die Sektion in der Tiermedizin auch in Zeiten stark verbesserter klinischer Diagnostik und diagnostischer Methoden wertvolle Information für die Qualitätskontrolle und Ausbildung. The comparison of clinical antemortem and pathological postmortem diagnoses is a prerequisite for quality control but is rarely done in veterinary medicine. In 1000 cats and 1000 dogs examined and necropsied at the University of Zurich, the occurrence and concurrence of clinical and pathological diagnoses linked to death were evaluated and potential factors influencing them were correlated retrospectively. In 5.8% cats and 5.2% dogs no diagnosis was made; in 2.6% and 3.8% of cases only a clinical, and in 17.8% and 11.2%, respectively, only a pathological diagnosis was available. Of the 73.9% of cats and 79.8% of dogs with both diagnoses present, 38.3% and 36.2% were in total agreement, whereas total disagreement was found in 17.9% and 16.0%, respectively. The remaining cases (43.8% and 47.8%) exhibited different levels of further diagnosis specification through necropsy. In both species manner of death, the clinical discipline sending the animal to necropsy and the quality of the necropsy request, as well as the timespan between death and necropsy in dogs, proved to influence the occurrence of diagnoses. By contrast, the organ system affected and the disease entity of a certain diagnosis were for both species the most influential factors in the concurrence of diagnoses. Therefore in veterinary medicine, even in times of improving diagnostic abilities, necropsy still reveals important information for quality control and education. Other titles: Korrelation von klinischen mit pathologischen Diagnosen bei Katzen und Hunden

show abstract

“…The nursing literature contains very little about the autopsy, and we could find no formal study of the views of nurses on the autopsy, even though there have been many studies of the views of other health professionals and trainees, members of ancillary professions and of relatives (Karunaratne & Benbow 1997). However, we were able to find two substantial review papers (Souder & Trojanowski 1992, Rushton 1995), both including conventional accounts of the benefits of autopsy; one was paired with a highly negative riposte (Stephany 1995), which amounts to an eloquent and emotive re‐statement of the curious but prevalent view (Brown 1984, Start et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attitudes of nursing staff to the autopsy

Dziobon

Roberts

Benbow

2000

Journal of Advanced Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attitudes of nursing staff to the autopsyWe assessed the views of hospital nurses on the autopsy, using a questionnaire which was distributed by hand to all quali®ed nurses working at Manchester Royal In®rmary during a 48-h period. We found that many respondents (43%) had had occasion to discuss autopsy with relatives, and the majority (90%) would like to learn more about counselling the bereaved. Few (15%) clearly understood the legal distinction between coroners' and hospital autopsies. Almost all (97%) thought the main reason for autopsy was determination of the cause of death, and only 12% supported a role in clinical audit. More respondents saw bene®ts for doctors rather than for nurses, and only 56% perceived a bene®t for relatives. In general, nursing staff have a more positive view of the autopsy than we anticipated, and we would advocate making more information about the bene®ts of autopsy available to nurses.

show abstract

A survey of general practitioners' views on autopsy reports.

Abstract: (C Clin Pathol 1997;50:548-552)

Cited by 21 publications

References 32 publications

Referral for autopsies: analysis of 651 consecutive deaths in one general practice

Referral for autopsies: analysis of 651 consecutive deaths in one general practice

Correlation of Clinical and Pathological Diagnoses in Cats and Dogs

Attitudes of nursing staff to the autopsy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About