Abstract
Quality is something that every pathologist is committed to—at least that is what every pathologist I have ever met has told me. Nevertheless, while there are many publications documenting ways in which the process of pathology can be improved, very few of these processes are adopted. Why? And when something new appears, how can you tell if it is going to catch on or not? In this issue of the Journal , Zarbo and colleagues1 do a wonderful job of demonstrating what a group of pathologists who are fully committed to the process and who appear to have real financial and administrative support can do to improve quality. They have shown that bar coding, along with significant changes in the way people actually handle specimens and the culture in which they work can lead to significant improvement in specimen misidentification errors in the laboratory. The results are impressive and persuasive, but will they catch on? Yes and no. Bar coding will definitely catch on. My boss has been telling me for years that as soon as a commercial system becomes available, he is …
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
