Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quality Management

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The International System for Serous Fluid Cytopathology

Abstract

Quality management of serous fluid cytopathology shares requirements with other clinical laboratory specimens as delineated in this chapter. Additional quality management (QM) practices represent expert recommendations that focus on identifying and preventing errors based on common practices and literature reviews. New monitors for practice improvement are suggested. The authors support standardization of QM activities to permit comparison and statistical compilation across practices that will provide data for future recommendations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Crothers BA, Tench WE, Schwartz MR, et al. Guidelines for the reporting of nongynecologic cytopathology specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133(11):1743–56.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hollensead SC, Lockwood WB, Elin RJ. Errors in pathology and laboratory medicine: consequences and prevention. J Surg Oncol. 2004;88(3):161–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Nodi L, Balassanian R, Sudilovsky D, Raab SS. Improving the quality of cytology diagnosis: root cause analysis for errors in bronchial washing and brushing specimens. Am J Clin Pathol. 2005;124(6):883–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chandra A, Cross P, Denton K, et al. The BSCC code of practice-exfoliative cytopathology (excluding gynaecological cytopathology). Cytopathology. 2009;20(4):211–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wilson A. The role of cytotechnologists in quality assurance and audit in non-gynaecological cytology. Cytopathology. 2015;26(2):75–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cummings MC, Greaves J, Shukor RA, Perkins G, Ross J. Technical proficiency in cytopathology: assessment through external quality assurance. Cytopathology. 2017;28(2):149–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. The Royal College of Pathologists. G086. Tissue Pathways for Diagnostic Cytopathology. 2019. https://www.rcpath.org/search-results.html?q=Tissue+pathways.

  8. Tworek J, Nayar R, Savaloja L, Tabbara S, Thomas N, Winkler B, Howell LP. General quality practices in gynecologic cytopathology: findings from the College of American Pathologists Gynecologic Cytopathology Quality Consensus Conference Working Group 3. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013;137(2):190–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tzankov A, Tornillo L. Hands-on experience: accreditation of pathology laboratories according to ISO 15189. Pathobiology. 2017;84(3):121–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Long-Mira E, Washetine K, Hofman P. Sense and nonsense in the process of accreditation of a pathology laboratory. Virchows Arch. 2016;468(1):43–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. College of American Pathologists Laboratory Accreditation Program. 2019. https://www.cap.org/laboratory-improvement/accreditation/laboratory-accreditation-program.

  12. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA). Standards and certifications: laboratory requirements (42 CFR 493) Electronic Code of Federal Regulations e-CFR. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=1248e3189daSe5f9.

  13. International Organizations of Standardization (ISO). https://www.iso.org.

  14. ISO 15189:2012E 2012. https://www.iso.org/standard/56115.html.

  15. The Joint Commission Laboratory Accreditation Program. https://www.jointcommission.org/accreditation/laboratory.aspx.

  16. Chandra S, Chandra H, Kusum A, Gaur DS. Study of the pre-analytical phase of an ISO 15189: 2012-certified cytopathology laboratory: a 5-year institutional experience. Acta Cytol. 2019;63(1):56–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Raab SS. Improving patient safety by examining pathology errors. Clin Lab Med. 2004;24:849–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Raab SS, Nakhleh RE, Ruby SG. Patient safety in anatomic pathology: measuring discrepancy frequencies and causes. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129(4):459–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Raab SS, Grzybicki DM. Measuring quality in anatomic pathology. Clin Lab Med. 2008;28(2):245–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Powsner SM, Costa J, Homer RJ. Clinicians are from Mars and pathologists are from Venus: clinician interpretation of pathology reports. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124(7):1040–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Payne DA, Baluchova K, Russomando G, et al. Towards harmonization of clinical molecular diagnostic reports: findings of an international survey. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2018;57(1):78–88.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nakhleh RE. Core components of a comprehensive quality assurance program in anatomic pathology. Adv Anat Pathol. 2009;16(6):418–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nakhleh RE, Nose V, Colasacco C, et al. Interpretive diagnostic error reduction in surgical pathology and cytology: guideline from the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center and the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016;140(1):29–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nakhleh RE, Bekeris LG, Souers RJ, Meier FA, Tworek JA. Surgical pathology case reviews before sign-out: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 45 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134(5):740–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ascoli V, Bosco D, Carnoval Scalzo C. Cytologic re-evaluation of negative effusions from patients with malignant mesothelioma. Pathologica. 2011;103(6):318–24.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Renshaw AA, Gould EW. Measuring the value of review of pathology material by a second pathologist. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;125(5):737–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Layfield LJ, Hammer RD, Frazier SR, et al. Impact of consensus conference review on diagnostic disagreements in the evaluation of cervical biopsy specimens. Am J Clin Pathol. 2017;147(5):473–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Raab SS, Grzybicki DM. Cytologic-histologic correlation. Cancer Cytopathol. 2011;199(5):293–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. American Society of Cytopathology. Non-gynecological Cytology Practice Guideline, March 2, 2004. https://www.cytopathology.org/wp-content/dynamic_uploads/54.pdf.

  30. Shidham VB, Epple J. Collection and processing of effusion fluids for cytopathology evaluation. In: Shidham VB, Atkinson BF, editors. Cytopathologic diagnosis of serous fluids. China: Saunders Elsevier, Inc.; 2007. p. 207–14.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Nakhleh RE, Myers JL, Allen TC, et al. Consensus statement on effective communication of urgent diagnoses and significant, unexpected diagnoses in surgical pathology and cytopathology from the College of American Pathologists and the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012;136(2):148–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Nakhleh RE. Quality in surgical pathology communication and reporting. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011;135(11):1394–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA

    Barbara Centeno & Marilin Rosa

  2. Department of Pathology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead, Tyne and Wear, UK

    Paul Cross

  3. Pathology Department, Hospital Universitario Getafe, Madrid, Spain

    Rosario Granados

Authors
  1. Barbara Centeno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul Cross
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marilin Rosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rosario Granados
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barbara Centeno .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Cellular Pathology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

    Ashish Chandra

  2. Gynecology, Breast and Cytopathology Joint Pathology Center, Silver Spring, MD, USA

    Barbara Crothers

  3. University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine and Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene, Madison, WI, USA

    Daniel Kurtycz

  4. Department of Pathology, Medical Faculty of Porto University and Unit of Molecular Pathology, Institute of Molecular Pathology and Immunology Porto University, Porto, Portugal

    Fernando Schmitt

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Centeno, B., Cross, P., Rosa, M., Granados, R. (2020). Quality Management. In: Chandra, A., Crothers, B., Kurtycz, D., Schmitt, F. (eds) The International System for Serous Fluid Cytopathology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53908-5_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53908-5_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-53907-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-53908-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation