PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Frederick A Meier

Publications and source records attributed to Frederick A Meier.

13 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

The "Big Dog" effect: variability assessing the causes of error in diagnoses of patients with lung cancer.

PURPOSE: The frequency of diagnostic error in patients who have a lung mass and a pathology specimen is as high as 15%. This study examined the role of inter-pathologist agreement in identifying the cause of error in these patients. METHODS: Pathologists from six institutions reviewed the slides of 40 patients who had a pulmonary specimen false-negative diagnosis. The initial assessment of error cause arose from cytologic-histologic correlation slide review of discrepant diagnostic samples in patients who had both a bronchial brushing cytologic and surgical specimen. The cause of error was attributed either to clinical sampling (diagnostic material obtained in one but not the other sample) or interpretation (pathologist failed to identify the salient diagnostic features). The pairwise kappa (kappa) statistic was used to calculate interobserver agreement between the review and original diagnoses and between the separate review diagnoses. RESULTS: The pairwise kappa statistic ranged widely from -0.154 to 1.0, and the pairwise kappa statistic of the slides from one institution was undetermined because that institutional pathologist never made the assessment that error was secondary to interpretation. Agreement for observers within the same institution was better than agreement between observers from different institutions. CONCLUSION: Pathologists exhibit poor agreement in determining the cause of error for pulmonary specimens sent for cancer diagnosis. We developed a psychosocial hypothesis (the "Big Dog" Effect) that partially explains biases in error assessment. This lack of agreement precludes confident targeting of these errors for quality improvement interventions with prospects of success across a variety of institutions.

Bronchi↗
PubMed2006

Use of a new method in reaching consensus on the cause of cytologic-histologic correlation discrepancy.

Pathologists exhibit very poor agreement in adjudicating the cause of cytologic-histologic correlation discrepancies, which contributes to problems in designing interventions to reduce discrepancy frequency. In this observational study, we developed a visual method of adjudicating discrepancy cause, termed the No-Blame Box method, which consisted of initially assessing specimen interpretability by separately evaluating specimen quality and the presence of tumor. Five pathologists blindly adjudicated the cause of discrepancy in pulmonary specimens from 40 patients. The kappa statistic of all pathologist pairs in adjudicating discrepancy cause using the No-Blame Box method ranged from 0.400 to 0.796, indicating acceptable to excellent agreement. Pathologists ranged in their assessment of specimen interpretability from 13% to 20%, and in no case did all 5 pathologists concur that a specimen was interpretable. Most discrepancies resulted from pathologists diagnosing noninterpretable samples. Pathologists who used the No-Blame Box showed significant agreement in the adjudication of discrepancy cause.

Consensus↗
PubMed2006

Errors in thyroid gland fine-needle aspiration.

Scant published data exist on redesigning pathology practice based on error data. In this first step of an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality patient safety project, we measured the performance metrics of thyroid gland fine-needle aspiration, performed root cause analysis to determine the causes of error, and proposed error-reduction initiatives to address specific errors. Eleven cytologists signed out 1,543 thyroid gland aspirates in 2 years, and surgical pathology follow-up was obtained in 364 patients. Of the 364 patients, 91 (25.0%) had a false-negative diagnosis and 36 (9.9%) a false-positive diagnosis. Root cause analysis showed that major sources of error were pre-analytic (poor specimen quality) and analytic (interpretation of unsatisfactory specimens as nonneoplastic and lack of diagnostic category standardization). We currently are evaluating the effectiveness of error reduction initiatives that target pre-analytic and analytic portions of the diagnostic pathway.

Biopsy, Fine-Needle↗
PubMed2006

Double slide viewing as a cytology quality improvement initiative.

Few studies have measured the effect of pre-sign out double viewing of cytology cases as a means to decrease error. Three Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-funded project sites performed pre-sign out double viewing of 431 pulmonary cytology cases. Two-step or more differences in diagnosis were arbitrated as interpretive errors, and the effect of double viewing was measured by comparing the frequency of cytologic-histologic correlation-detected errors in the previous 2 years with the double-viewing period. The number of interpretive errors detected by double viewing for the 3 institutions was 2.7%, 0% and 1.9%, respectively. Double viewing did not lower the frequency of cytologic-histologic correlation false-negative errors. We conclude that double viewing detects errors in up to 1 of every 37 cases and that biases in the double-viewing process limit error detection.

Carcinoma, Small Cell↗
PubMed2005

Clinical impact and frequency of anatomic pathology errors in cancer diagnoses.

BACKGROUND: To the authors' knowledge, the frequency and clinical impact of errors in the anatomic pathology diagnosis of cancer have been poorly characterized to date. METHODS: The authors examined errors in patients who underwent anatomic pathology tests to determine the presence or absence of cancer or precancerous lesions in four hospitals. They analyzed 1 year of retrospective errors detected through a standardized cytologic-histologic correlation process (in which patient same-site cytologic and histologic specimens were compared). Medical record reviews were performed to determine patient outcomes. The authors also measured the institutional frequency, cause (i.e., pathologist interpretation or sampling), and clinical impact of diagnostic cancer errors. RESULTS: The frequency of errors in cancer diagnosis was found to be dependent on the institution (P < 0.001) and ranged from 1.79-9.42% and from 4.87-11.8% of all correlated gynecologic and nongynecologic cases, respectively. A statistically significant association was found between institution and error cause (P < 0.001); the cause of errors resulting from pathologic misinterpretation ranged from 5.0-50.7% (the remainder were due to clinical sampling). A statistically significant association was found between institution and assignment of the clinical impact of error (P < 0.001); the aggregated data demonstrated that for gynecologic and nongynecologic errors, 45% and 39%, respectively, were associated with harm. The pairwise kappa statistic for interobserver agreement on cause of error ranged from 0.118-0.737. CONCLUSIONS: Errors in cancer diagnosis are reported to occur in up to 11.8% of all reviewed cytologic-histologic specimen pairs. To the authors' knowledge, little agreement exists regarding whether pathology errors are secondary to misinterpretation or poor clinical sampling of tissues and whether pathology errors result in serious harm.

Diagnostic Errors↗
PubMed2005

Error detection in anatomic pathology.

OBJECTIVES: To define the magnitude of error occurring in anatomic pathology, to propose a scheme to classify such errors so their influence on clinical outcomes can be evaluated, and to identify quality assurance procedures able to reduce the frequency of errors. DESIGN: (a) Peer-reviewed literature search via PubMed for studies from single institutions and multi-institutional College of American Pathologists Q-Probes studies of anatomic pathology error detection and prevention practices; (b) structured evaluation of defects in surgical pathology reports uncovered in the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine of the Henry Ford Health System in 2001-2003, using a newly validated error taxonomy scheme; and (c) comparative review of anatomic pathology quality assurance procedures proposed to reduce error. RESULTS: Marked differences in both definitions of error and pathology practice make comparison of error detection and prevention procedures among publications from individual institutions impossible. Q-Probes studies further suggest that observer redundancy reduces diagnostic variation and interpretive error, which ranges from 1.2 to 50 errors per 1000 cases; however, it is unclear which forms of such redundancy are the most efficient in uncovering diagnostic error. The proposed error taxonomy tested has shown a very good interobserver agreement of 91.4% (kappa = 0.8780; 95% confidence limit, 0.8416-0.9144), when applied to amended reports, and suggests a distribution of errors among identification, specimen, interpretation, and reporting variables. CONCLUSIONS: Presently, there are no standardized tools for defining error in anatomic pathology, so it cannot be reliably measured nor can its clinical impact be assessed. The authors propose a standardized error classification that would permit measurement of error frequencies, clinical impact of errors, and the effect of error reduction and prevention efforts. In particular, the value of double-reading, case conferences, and consultations (the traditional triad of error control in anatomic pathology) awaits objective assessment.

Diagnostic Errors↗
PubMed2005

Anatomic pathology databases and patient safety.

CONTEXT: The utility of anatomic pathology discrepancies has not been rigorously studied. OBJECTIVE: To outline how databases may be used to study anatomic pathology patient safety. DESIGN: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded the creation of a national anatomic pathology errors database to establish benchmarks for error frequency. The database is used to track more frequent errors and errors that result in more serious harm, in order to design quality improvement interventions intended to reduce these types of errors. In the first year of funding, 4 institutions (University of Pittsburgh, Henry Ford Hospital, University of Iowa, and Western Pennsylvania Hospital) reported cytologic-histologic correlation error data after standardizing correlation methods. Root cause analysis was performed to determine sources of error, and error reduction plans were implemented. PARTICIPANTS: Four institutions self-reported anatomic pathology error data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency of cytologic-histologic correlation error, case type, cause of error (sampling or interpretation), and effect of error on patient outcome (ie, no harm, near miss, and harm). RESULTS: The institutional gynecologic cytologic-histologic correlation error frequency ranged from 0.17% to 0.63%, using the denominator of all Papanicolaou tests. Based on the nongynecologic cytologic-histologic correlation data, the specimen sites with the highest discrepancy frequency (by project site) were lung (ranging from 16.5% to 62.3% of all errors) and urinary bladder (ranging from 4.4% to 25.0%). Most errors detected by the gynecologic cytologic-histologic correlation process were no-harm events (ranging from 10.7% to 43.2% by project site). Root cause analysis identified sources of error on both the clinical and pathology sides of the process, and error intervention programs are currently being implemented to improve patient safety. CONCLUSIONS: A multi-institutional anatomic pathology error database may be used to benchmark practices and target specific high-frequency errors or errors with high clinical impact. These error reduction programs have national import.

Benchmarking↗
PubMed2005

Point-of-care testing error: sources and amplifiers, taxonomy, prevention strategies, and detection monitors.

CONTEXT: In a survey performed 4 years ago, testing venues doing only point-of-care testing (POCT) made up 78% of sites for patient testing licensed under federal regulations. OBJECTIVES: To identify sources of POCT error, to present a classification of such errors, to suggest strategies to prevent errors, and to describe monitors that assess and reduce the frequency of errors. DESIGN: To identify sources of POCT error, large studies of error among US Federal Certificate of Waiver laboratories (CoWs) and practitioner-performed microscopy certificate holders were reviewed. To facilitate investigation and management of POCT error, a taxonomy of such errors (modified from a classification previously published by Gerald Kost) was used to identify 4 steps with error potential in each of the 3 phases (ie, preanalytic, analytic, and postanalytic) of the POCT process. To prevent observed POCT errors, 4 strategies are suggested: direct observation of instrument/method functionality, structured observation of method performance, proficiency testing/use of relevant test scenarios, and autonomation. To assess frequency of errors, a quartet of indices are introduced as detection monitors: order documentation, patient identification, specimen adequacy, and result integrity. RESULTS: Three sources of POCT error were identified: operator incompetence, nonadherence to test procedures, and use of uncontrolled reagents and equipment. Three other characteristics of many point-of-care tests amplify their risk of error: incoherent regulation, rapid availability of results, and the results' immediate therapeutic implications. Two members of the quartet of detection monitors, order documentation and specimen adequacy, are relatively difficult to measure and are controversial, but the other 2, patient identification and result integrity, are easier to assess and are relatively widely accepted. CONCLUSIONS: Point-of-care testing errors are relatively common, their frequency is amplified by incoherent regulation, and their likelihood of affecting patient care is amplified by the rapid availability of POCT results and the results' immediate therapeutic implications. The modified Kost taxonomy offers a reasonable approach to the identification of POCT errors. Direct observation of test functionality, structured observation of test performance, and testing the competence of POCT operators, as well as autonomation of devices, are strategies to prevent such errors. In this context, we suggest monitoring POCT order documentation, patient identification, specimen integrity, and result reporting to detect errors in this sort of testing.

Humans↗
PubMed2004

Patient safety in point-of-care testing.

In the authors' view, the following four points compose the current state of the question of patient safety in point-of-care testing: The collision of definitions used in this article with actual practice in point-of-care testing is evidence for the likelihood of error in this genre of clinical tests. Uncovering of latent conditions conducive to error is the objective for investigations of this likelihood. A modified Kost classification serves as a basis for determining where latent conditions appear in the point-of-care testing process and as a framework in which to recognize these errors in an error classification process. Errors in point-of-care testing are likely to arise most frequently in the steps of patient identification, specimen collection, and result reporting. In the absence of an adequate evidence base, the authors recommend as measures to build a culture of patient safety in point-of-care testing the components of the standard model of safe laboratory testing. This model inculcates the laboratory ethos of test operator competence, procedure adherence, quality control, and result integrity. These objectives can be achieved by integrating operator training, program supervision, competence assessment, and proficiency demonstration into an institution's or practice's point-of-care testing program. Based on the authors' hypothesis that medical errors in point-of-care testing, which lead to preventable adverse events most often arise in three testing processes--patient identification, specimen collation, and result reporting--they recommend ongoing monitors of these critical steps. If they are wrong, such monitoring will disprove their hypothesis; if they are right, it will measurably reduce medical error in point-of-care testing.

Humans↗
PubMed2002

Operating room blood delivery turnaround time: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probe Study of 12647 units of blood components in 466 institutions.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the normative distribution of time elapsed for blood bank personnel to fill nonscheduled operating room (OR) blood component orders in hospital communities throughout the United States, and to examine hospital blood bank practices associated with faster blood component delivery times. DESIGN: Participants in the College of American Pathologists Q-Probes laboratory quality improvement program collected data prospectively on the times elapsed for blood bank personnel to fill nonscheduled emergent orders from hospital ORs for red blood cell (RBC) products, fresh frozen plasma (FFP), and platelets (PLTs). Participants also completed questionnaires describing their hospitals' and blood banks' laboratory and transfusion practices. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred sixty-six public and private institutions located in 48 states in the United States (n = 444), Canada (n = 9), Australia (n = 8), the United Kingdom (n = 4), and Spain (n = 1). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The median time elapsed between requests for blood components by OR personnel and the retrieval of those components by blood component transport personnel, and the median time elapsed between requests for blood components by OR personnel and the arrival of those components in ORs. RESULTS: Participants submitted data on 12 647 units of RBCs, FFP, and PLTs. The median aggregate request-to-retrieval turnaround times (TATs) for RBCs, FFP, and PLTs ranged from 30 to 35 minutes, and the median aggregate request-to-arrival TATs for RBCs, FFP, and PLTs ranged from 33 to 39 minutes. Most of the TAT was consumed by events occurring prior to, rather than after release of components from blood banks. Shorter prerelease TATs were associated with having surgical schedules that listed patients' names and procedures available to blood bank personnel prior to surgeries, and having adequate clotted specimens in the blood bank and completed type-and-screen procedures performed before requests for blood components were submitted to blood banks. Among the fastest-performing 10% of participants (90th percentile and above), request-to-retrieval TATs ranged from 12 to 24 minutes for the 3 blood components, whereas among the slowest-performing 10% of participants (10th percentile and below), request-to-retrieval TATs ranged from 63 to 115 minutes for the 3 components. Median TATs ranged from 33 to 37 minutes for the 3 components. Institutions with TATs in the fastest-performing 25th percentile more frequently stored cross-matched RBCs in the OR daily, stocked PLTs for unexpected surgical use, stored PLTs in or near the OR, and had laboratory rather than nonlaboratory personnel deliver components to the OR than did those institutions with TATs in the slowest-performing 25th percentile. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital blood bank personnel can deliver blood components to the OR in slightly longer than 30 minutes, measured from the time that those units are requested by OR personnel. Practices aimed at saving time before components are released from blood banks will be more efficient in reducing overall TAT than those practices aimed at saving time after components are released from blood banks. Specific practices associated with shorter blood delivery TATs included providing blood bank personnel with access to the names of surgical patients potentially requiring blood components, having pretransfusion testing completed on those patients prior to surgery, having ample blood products on hand, and having laboratory personnel control blood product delivery.

Blood Banks↗
PubMed1985

Neuropathologic lesions and CSF morphine concentrations during chronic continuous intraspinal morphine infusion. A clinical and post-mortem study.

Seven patients with chronic intractable pain due to cancer were given chronic intraspinal narcotic administration (CINA) and subsequently underwent post-mortem examination. All deaths were unrelated to CINA. Two of these patients were found to have clinically unsuspected posterior column degeneration. Both patients had had epidural catheters placed, and one had received prior radiotherapy to ports which included parts of the spinal cord. In retrospect, it is impossible to ascertain whether the degeneration occurred before or after infusion of morphine began. Review of the potential causes for posterior column degeneration suggests that neuropathy associated with malignant disease is more likely the cause of the degeneration rather than intraspinal infusion of morphine. However, continued vigilance at autopsy is recommended. In addition, utilizing a new method for measuring cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) concentrations of morphine via high-pressure liquid chromatography, CSF morphine levels at steady state were measured in 5 patients. These levels were much lower than peak levels previously reported following bolus intraspinal administration. The ability of these measurements to contribute to knowledge of efficacy, toxicity, lumbar-cisternal concentration gradients, and differentiation of tolerance from drug delivery problems is discussed.

Aged↗