Aims Reports into standards in the National Health Service and quality in pathology have focused on the way we work in pathology and how to provide assurance that this is of a high standard. There are a number of external quality assurance schemes covering pathology and histopathology specifically; however, there is no scheme covering the process of histological surgical dissection. This is an area undergoing development, emerging from the sole preserve of medically qualified pathologists to a field populated by a number of highly trained biomedical scientists, but remains without any formal quality assurance.
Methods This work builds on Barnes, taking the guidance of the Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath)and Institute of Biomedical Science (IBMS)to form a series of key performance indicators relating to dissection. These were developed for use as an indicator of individual practice, highlighting areas of variation, weakness or strength. Once identified, a feedback event provided opportunities to address these errors and omissions, or to enable areas of strength to be shared.
Results The data obtained from the checklists demonstrate a large variation in practice at the outset of this study. The use of the checklists alone served to reduce this variation in practice, the addition of the training event showed further reduction in variation. The combination of these two tools was an effective method for enhancing standardisation of practice.
Conclusions The results of this work show that training events serve to reduce variation in practice by, and between, dissectors, driving up standards in dissection—directly addressing the needs of the modern pathology service.
- quality assurance
- quality control
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
This work has been previously submitted as part of a doctoral thesis.
Handling editor Runjan Chetty
Contributors MG performed the bulk of the work for this investigation. RG provided supervision and extensive critical input to the planning and the writing of this work.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.