Addressing the Diagnostic Miscommunication in Pathology

Abstract

Objectives The pathology report serves as a crucial communication tool among a number of stakeholders. It can sometimes be challenging to understand. A communication barrier exists among pathologists, other clinicians, and patients when interpreting the pathology report, leaving both clinicians and patients less empowered when making treatment decisions. Miscommunication can lead to delays in treatment or other costly medical interventions. Methods In this review, we highlight miscommunication in pathology reporting and provide potential solutions to improve communication. Results Up to one-third of clinicians do not always understand pathology reports. Several causes of report misinterpretation include the use of pathology-specific jargon, different versions of staging or grading systems, and expressions indicative of uncertainty in the pathologist’s report. Active communication has proven to be crucial between the clinician and the pathologist to clarify different aspects of the pathology report. Direct communication between pathologists and patients is evolving, with promising success in proof-of-principle studies. Special attention needs to be paid to avoiding inaccuracy while trying to simplify the pathology report. Conclusions There is a need for active and adequate communication among pathologists, other clinicians, and patients. Clarity and consistency in reporting, quantifying the level of confidence in diagnosis, and avoiding misnomers are key steps toward improving communications.

Deep learning for subtypes identification of pure seminoma of the testis

“…An audit of pathology reports showed that if a sample size of 50 gives a sample error rate of 2% there is a 95% probability that the true error rate is up to 10.9% [16]. Moreover, up to one-third of clinicians do not always understand pathology reports, which causes misinterpretation and uncertainty in clinical diagnosis [17]. DL approaches applied to histopathological slide images aim to significantly speed up the diagnosis and simplify their implementation into clinical workflow.…”

Compatible With Confusion: Phrasing Pitfalls in Anatomic Pathology Reports

“…The term “knowledge translation” has been utilized in oncology and pathology and is defined as the method for closing the gaps between knowledge and practice 10 . It also refers to the application of knowledge in clinical practice among different groups within the health care team such as providers, patients, and other health care professionals 11 . In surgical pathology, “knowledge translation” of the report, and the content thereof, is extremely important 11 .…”

“…We have presented a case as an example of how uncertainty phrases can cause confusion as well as additional work and cost. With up to one-third of clinicians not understanding the pathology report, it is vital to emphasize the importance of clear and effective “knowledge translation” of the final diagnosis 11 . There have been proposed systems as to how to tackle uncertainty, including a standardized scheme where each phrase is given a number-based (ie, “50%–79%”) level of uncertainty 14 .…”

“…10 It also refers to the application of knowledge in clinical practice among different groups within the health care team such as providers, patients, and other health care professionals. 11 In surgical pathology, "knowledge translation" of the report, and the content thereof, is extremely important. 11 In this era of personalized or precision medicine, the surgical pathology report is the epicenter of patient care for those with a diagnosis of cancer.…”

Digital transformation of the pathological service as a way to improve the quality of medical care.

“…Для правильной постановки диагноза и назначения необходимого лечения требуется скоординированная работа лечащего врача и врачапатологоанатома. Однако их взаимодействие может быть ограничено как различиями в терминологии, классификациях, устоявшихся только среди патологоанатомов формулировках, используемых при написании заключения, так и отсутствии доступа патологоанатома к истории болезни и иной медицинской документации пациента [14]. Исследование Barbieri A.L.…”