Responses

Download PDFPDF
Improved quality of patient care through routine second review of histopathology specimens prior to multidisciplinary meetings
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Neelam Iqtidar
    Published on:
  • Published on:
    Fy2 Doctor
    • Neelam Iqtidar, Foundation year 2 doctor North Manchester General hospital

    As a interested candidate for histopathology speciality training, I had the opportunity to attend a lung MDT in which roughly 25 cases were discussed. The case load was huge and some cases were rushed. The rushed cases were to be rediscussed which is a good form of safety netting although not ideal. The histopathology consultant requested reminders so immunohistology or second readings do not get missed. It would truely revolutionise MDT meetings if standard double reading could become a routine practice although already done in majority of cases.

    The author has shed light on the importance of double reading of slides along with impressive figures.

    A second review of slides could be a way to not only reduce error, but also improve quality of care in terms of management and immunohistology.

    Thank you so much for highlighting the importance of a routine second review prior to MDT meetings. During the taster session, I asked the Histopathology consultants if they encourage second reviews and was informed that wherever there is the slightest doubt, another consultant or sub-specialist would be consulted. It was reassuring to know that histopathologists can always benefit from their colleagues expertise.

    This practice safeguards patients in the sense that a correct diagnosis can be made in all cases minimising potential errors.

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.