Publication:
Double check up of malignancy biopsy specimens for patient safety

dc.contributor.authorPattana Sornmayuraen_US
dc.contributor.authorYingluck Visessirien_US
dc.contributor.authorMana Rochanawutanonen_US
dc.contributor.authorVorachai Sirikulchayanontaen_US
dc.contributor.authorRangsima Aroonrochen_US
dc.contributor.authorWasana Kanoksilen_US
dc.contributor.authorNoppadol Larbcharoensuben_US
dc.contributor.authorSansanee Wongwaisayawanen_US
dc.contributor.authorJuvady Leopairuten_US
dc.contributor.authorPanas Chalermsanyakornen_US
dc.contributor.authorSuchin Worawichawongen_US
dc.contributor.authorNiramol Chanplakornen_US
dc.contributor.authorPaisan Leelachaikulen_US
dc.contributor.authorAtcharaporn Pongtippanen_US
dc.contributor.otherMahidol Universityen_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-09-24T09:18:09Z
dc.date.available2018-09-24T09:18:09Z
dc.date.issued2010-11-01en_US
dc.description.abstractBackground: The diagnostic of malignancy in biopsy specimens is very important because it guides to selected treatment option and prognostic prediction. However, biopsy specimens usually have small pieces leading to variations of the interpretation by anatomical pathologists. Objective: To detect and correct the errors or the significant discrepancies in the diagnosis of biopsy specimens before signout and to determine the frequency of anatomic pathology significant discrepancies. Design: The application of the mutually agreed work instructions (record) for the detection of errors or the significant discrepancies and their process of sign-out. The record of biopsy specimen that received a secondary check (1,959 cases, 2005-2007) was analyzed. Results: After a secondary check, 53 cases of non-malignancy for any reason by a second pathologist were included. However, when using our definition on significant discrepancies, only 37 cases were considered. Another seven cases with the opinions with malignancy that were of different cell types that do harm to the patients were added. Therefore, 44 cases (2.25%) had truly significant discrepancies. Conclusion: The truly significant discrepancy frequency was 2.25% during the process of pre-sign-out secondary check of malignancy of biopsy specimens. The project has been applied as a routine daily work. It can be an innovative safety program for patient in Thailand.en_US
dc.identifier.citationJournal of the Medical Association of Thailand. Vol.93, No.11 (2010), 1310-1316en_US
dc.identifier.issn01252208en_US
dc.identifier.issn01252208en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-78649261818en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/29462
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=78649261818&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleDouble check up of malignancy biopsy specimens for patient safetyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=78649261818&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections