54 Background: Pathology reporting content and formatting varies considerably in British Columbia (BC). The impact of this variability on the quality of care is unknown but it hinders effective data collection and measurement to guide quality improvement. A knowledge mobilization project that digitalized standardized reporting would ensure report completeness and generation of comparative performance data could be used within communities of practice to facilitate peer-to-peer conversations and create action plans to improve patient care. Methods: In 2014 BC adopted the College of American Pathologists cancer checklists as the standard for synoptic reporting using a single standalone electronic synoptic reporting program which interfaced with all five provincial laboratory information systems. Using the tool ensures all mandatory clinical prognostic indicators are reported. Discrete data elements were transmitted to a central data repository (CDR) which was mined to compile key performance indices reports for individual pathologists and generate comparative data reports at the institutional, regional and provincial level. Results: In the first six months of its implementation there was variation from 11-94% across different laboratories in their adoption of the reporting tool. The goal is to increase the average adoption rate from 76% to 90%. Analysis of data showed a highly comparable pattern of pathology practice across the major cancer sites/types and comparable to other Canadian provinces and the literature. Advisory committee reviews with interdisciplinary discussion of comparative data reports revealed potential areas for clinical improvement. For example, significant variation in the number of lymph nodes in colorectal resections was identified with some sites falling short of published recommendations. Conclusions: Population-based standardized digitalized pathology data reporting with centralized data collection can be achieved. Analysis of this data enables monitoring of performance metrics and meaningful discussions via communities of practice identify areas for quality improvement and create action plans.
Read full abstract