Frozen section consultation. Utilization patterns and knowledge base of surgical faculty at a university hospital.

Abstract

The authors studied the knowledge base of surgical faculty concerning frozen section consultations at a university hospital to determine whether it had any relationship to the appropriateness of frozen section requests. To accomplish this, the reasons for performing frozen sections during a 3-month period were analyzed, and those request that seemed ambiguous or inappropriate were identified. Simultaneously a 15-item questionnaire was distributed to faculty and housestaff dealing with factual information concerning the technique and limitations of frozen section diagnosis (Questions 1-8), as well as appropriateness of frozen section requests in a number of clinical situations (Questions 9-15). The collective score on items of general information (Questions 1-8) was 69%, whereas scores on Questions 9-15 ranged from 39% on the gynecologic question related to evaluation of a cystic ovarian mass to 81% on the general surgery question regarding evaluation of a soft tissue mass. Of 914 frozen sections, 95% were performed for appropriate reasons, which included evaluation of margins (46%), establishing a primary diagnosis (43%), determining adequacy or viability of tissue (3%), or satisfying immediate patient/family concerns ( < 1%). Five percent of frozen sections were performed for ambiguous or seemingly inappropriate reasons. Because fewer than five faculty members were responsible for the inappropriate frozen section request, the authors did not find that the results of the questionnaire predicted or anticipated situations in which inappropriate requests occurred. Nonetheless, the results of the questionnaire indicate there is important general information concerning frozen sections that is not uniformly shared by surgical faculty, such as the types of tissue that cannot be cut on a cryostat, the reasons for deferred frozen sections, and the situations in which fresh tissue is needed for special studies. The authors suggest the inappropriate frozen section could be diminished by an educational initiative targeted at a relatively small segment of clinical faculty, whereas enhancement of general information regarding frozen section should ideally occur in the broader context of clinical conferences using illustrative case material.