How the concept of “critical values” in surgical pathology should change the pathology laboratories workflow?
Is it sufficient for pathologists to only communicate the results rapidly with clinicians? For instance if we accept that every endometrial curettage sampling can potentially be accompanied by threat of uterine wall piercing and hence presence of fat in these samples might be the first clue to this life threatening complication, any delay in processing and reporting may adversely affect patient’s safety. It seems unwise to process the tissue in ordinary timetable of pathology laboratory, review the prepared slide 24–48 hours later, spend another 24 hours for submission of remaining tissue or preparation of re-cuts and then report the presence of fat in curettage content 48–72 hours after submission of specimen. It is clear that rapid communication with the surgeon after this vital gap has little, if any, effect on lowering patients’ morbidity or mortality. In such situations complete submission of tissue immediately after receiving, fixing and processing the tissue by rapid processing
Related Questions
- How do CLIA and the CLIA inspectors view these in-office laboratories? Will the fact that I will be operating in a setting not in a hospital or pathology lab increase the level of scrutiny?
- What other things, including laboratories, pathology, patient transport, or right side surgery, can barcode technology be used for?
- Which HE filter is used for pathology, laboratories, and primate research centers?
