You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 69, Issue 10
  • Improved quality of patient care through routine second review of histopathology specimens prior to multidisciplinary meetings

Responses

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original article
Improved quality of patient care through routine second review of histopathology specimens prior to multidisciplinary meetings
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

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:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Neelam Iqtidar
    Published on: 8 November 2020
  • Published on: 8 November 2020
    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.