@article {Yuejclinpath-2020-206546, author = {Sum Yu Pansy Yue and Sebastian B Lucas and Michael Brown and Peter L Chiodini and Stephen L Walker and Ula Mahadeva}, title = {Utility of an infectious and tropical disease histopathology diagnostic review service}, elocation-id = {jclinpath-2020-206546}, year = {2020}, doi = {10.1136/jclinpath-2020-206546}, publisher = {BMJ Publishing Group}, abstract = {Aim To assess the utility of a London-based infectious and tropical disease histopathology diagnostic review service.Methods The original and specialist review histopathology reports of 457 samples from over 3 years of referrals were compared retrospectively.Results Overall 329 (72.0\%) showed no significant difference; 34 (7.4\%) showed a non-clinically significant difference; and 94 (20.6\%) showed a clinically significant difference. Of the 94 clinically significant discrepancies, 46 (48.9\%) were incorrectly suspected infections; 19 (20.2\%) were missed infections; 8 (8.5\%) were different infections; and in 20 (21.3\%), the specialist review yielded more specific identification of an organism or a more correct assessment of its viability.Conclusions A review of histopathology cases by an infectious disease (ID) histopathology referral centre has yielded a 20.6\% clinically significant error rate. Measures to improve training in ID histopathology in the UK are discussed.}, issn = {0021-9746}, URL = {https://jcp.bmj.com/content/early/2020/06/23/jclinpath-2020-206546}, eprint = {https://jcp.bmj.com/content/early/2020/06/23/jclinpath-2020-206546.full.pdf}, journal = {Journal of Clinical Pathology} }