Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Characterising the use of surgical pathology rush requests: a descriptive analysis and survey
  1. Christopher Tran1,
  2. Boris Virine1,2,
  3. Ariel Gershon1,2,
  4. Keith F Kwan1,
  5. Helen C Ettler1
  1. 1Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada
  2. 2Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Dr Christopher Tran, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Canada; christopher.tran{at}lhsc.on.ca

Abstract

This study aimed to characterise priority or ‘rush’ surgical pathology requests and identify potentially targetable factors. We performed a retrospective descriptive analysis of rush requests at our institution from 2016 to 2019 and conducted a survey asking pathologists about their perspectives on rush cases. There were 3677 rush cases, with case characteristics generally stable over the study period. Two categories of requests were identified based on hospital status; outpatient requests more frequently provided a specific date for diagnosis, while inpatient rush requests generally required a diagnosis as soon as possible. Most pathologists found rush cases to be somewhat more stressful compared with routine cases (65.2%) and found it very or extremely useful to know when a result is needed (86.9%). The use of hospitalisation status, and identifying if results are required by a certain date, may help in more effective triaging of rush surgical pathology cases.

  • pathology, surgical
  • pathology department, hospital
  • quality control

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

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.

Footnotes

  • Handling editor Runjan Chetty.

  • Contributors CT provided substantial contributions to the conception and planning of the study; data collection, analysis and interpretation; and drafting of the manuscript. BV and AG provided substantial contributions to data collection and analysis, and revising of the manuscript. HCE and KFK provided substantial contributions to the conception and planning of the study, data interpretation and revising of the manuscript. All authors will be involved in the final version to be published.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.