Revised Reporting (Issuing Addenda and Amendments) in Pathology.

Spiczka, Amy; Waibel, Liz; Garcia, Edna; Kundu, Iman; Kelly, Melissa; Brown, Ali

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to align the current experiences and best practices in revised reporting (issuing of addenda and amendments) in pathology. Pathology specialties explored in the survey include anatomic pathology, surgical pathology, cytopathology, and hematopathology. METHODS The study used a cross-sectional design in which an online revised reporting survey was deployed to a large national sample represented by pathologists, pathology residents, pathology fellows, pathology managers, and laboratory directors. RESULTS Qualitative and quantitative results from this survey highlight significant variation in standards for creating, issuing, and tracking quality indicators related to addenda and amendments. The most notable findings were a lack of standardization and the potential for widespread adoption of revised reporting best practices within and between pathology services. CONCLUSIONS Survey insight provides the potential for improving patient safety outcomes, engaging with consumers of our reports, providing a current state view of revised reporting, and assessing the attitudes of pathologists and laboratory professionals on how their individual approaches and team-based workflows achieve revised reports. The data generated from this survey will provide patient safety opportunities associated with accurate pathology reporting and will encourage further development of optimal pathology revised reporting guidelines.