The value of monitoring amended reports in cytopathology quality programs: A biennial review.

Abstract

Quality and safety are the foundation of the practice of cytopathology. Review of key performance indicator (KPI) data can shine a light on laboratory vulnerabilities and potential areas for targeted improvement. The rate and content of amendment reports is a frequently monitored KPI in anatomic pathology, but few have studied its value in cytopathology. The goal of this study was to examine the frequency, classification, and outcome of amendments for a large cytopathology laboratory. All amendment reports issued for cases during a 2-year period from July 2019 to June 2021 were included in the study. Amendments were classified into three error type root causes: Specimen Identification Error, General Report Defects, and Diagnostic Error. A total of 202 amendment reports were issued equating to a rate of 0.275%. A total of 83 (41.1%) were gynecologic cases and 119 (58.9%) were nongynecologic cases. Within the gynecologic cases, 13 (15.7%) cases were due to Specimen Identification Error, 13 (15.7%) cases were due to Diagnostic Error, and 57 (68.7%) cases were due to General Report Defects. Within the nongynecologic cases, 15 (12.6%) cases were due to Specimen Identification Error, 30 (25.2%) cases were due to General Report Defects, and 74 (62.2%) cases were due to Diagnostic Error with 32 of these due to true diagnostic change. Discovery methods included following re-review after additional clinical information was provided, reinterpretation after additional ancillary testing was performed, or conference review. There was no correlation with years in practice. Studying amendment reports is an underrecognized and valuable quality assurance tool. Amendments can help provide information about types of errors, monitor laboratory processes, and help guide quality improvement endeavors.