Linked Life Data

19019767

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/19019767

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
6
pubmed:dateCreated
2008-11-21
pubmed:abstractText
Different error detection methods yield different error proportions and have variable benefits for surgical pathology divisions with limited resources. We performed a nonconcurrent cohort study at a large institution that practices subspecialty surgical pathology sign-out to compare the effectiveness and usefulness of error detection using a targeted 5% random review process and a focused review process. Pathologists reviewed 7,444 cases using a targeted 5% random review process and 380 cases using a focused review process. The numbers of errors detected by the targeted 5% random and focused review processes were 195 (2.6% of reviewed cases) and 50 (13.2%), respectively (P < .001). The numbers of major errors for the targeted 5% random and focused review processes was 27 (0.36%) and 12 (3.2%), respectively (P < .001). Focused review detects a higher proportion of errors and may be more effectively used for design of error reduction initiatives.
pubmed:grant
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
AIM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Dec
pubmed:issn
1943-7722
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Electronic
pubmed:volume
130
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
905-12
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
2008
pubmed:articleTitle
Effectiveness of random and focused review in detecting surgical pathology error.
pubmed:affiliation
Department of Pathology, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, CO 80045, USA.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.