Journal of Postgraduate Medicine
 Open access journal indexed with Index Medicus & ISI's SCI  
Users online: 498  
Home | Subscribe | Feedback | Login 
About Latest Articles Back-Issues Article Submission Resources Sections Etcetera Contact
 
  NAVIGATE Here 
  Search
 
  
 RESOURCE Links
 ::  Similar in PUBMED
 ::  Search Pubmed for
 ::  Search in Google Scholar for
 ::  Article in PDF (200 KB)
 ::  Citation Manager
 ::  Access Statistics
 ::  Reader Comments
 ::  Email Alert *
 ::  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free) 

  IN THIS Article
 ::  References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1104    
    Printed19    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded25    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


 


 
  Table of Contents     
LETTER
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 61  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 213-214

Authors' reply


1 Department of Pathology, Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
2 Department of Medical Records, Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Date of Web Publication26-Jun-2015

Correspondence Address:
K K Deodhar
Department of Pathology, Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions




How to cite this article:
Deodhar K K, Rekhi B, Menon S, Ganesh B. Authors' reply. J Postgrad Med 2015;61:213-4

How to cite this URL:
Deodhar K K, Rekhi B, Menon S, Ganesh B. Authors' reply. J Postgrad Med [serial online] 2015 [cited 2019 Sep 19];61:213-4. Available from: http://www.jpgmonline.com/text.asp?2015/61/3/213/159433


Sir,

We thank Dr. Raina [1] for the response to our paper [2] where he has addressed our audit process and compared it with previous audit reports. [3],[4],[5] Raina has questioned the purely descriptive nature of our audit and stated that it is inefficient and lacks educational value. However, Campbell et al. [3] made this statement in relation to a trial audit done in their department in 2% of the randomly selected cases. A wide range of features ranging from macroscopic description to technical quality were assessed. These were scored as satisfactory, borderline, or unsatisfactory. The authors opined that such a procedure was inefficient and of limited educational value. In particular, there were problems in agreeing on the criteria for a satisfactory report, and scoring was therefore subjective and arbitrary. This lack of confidence in the data meant that there was no mechanism to close the "audit cycle."

Our study was different in that it assessed the compliance of contents of a specified group of cases (histopathology reports of carcinoma endometrium) with the required contents that are well-defined in literature. Hence, we feel the above mentioned statement may not be applicable for our study. The 2% random checking of the reports by two senior consultants within the department was proposed and implemented by Zuk et al. in 1991 [4] as an internal quality exercise in histopathology. We accept that our method has been descriptive with the lack of a formal kappa score by the authors. Our aim, however, was to assess the compliance with a particular reporting pattern in a group of 13 pathologists who are generalists and not to assess interindividual variability. So "good" tends to be not a statistical statement but rather a measured interpretation of a generalist. Raina has alluded to references largely from the UK where these reviews are well entrenched in routine practice. [5] Most practices in UK universities' hospitals have gone the subspecialty way (vertical split) in early 2000 and this perhaps could be the reason why similar reports (about generalists reporting) in UK journals are less at present. Our broad aim was to strive for consistency in reporting cancer histopathology within the department. With regard to closure of the audit cycle, we need to see reported contents at a later date in order to look for changes for the better. We could also address the possibility and logistics in reporting only subspecialty, which could bring better compliance for minimum data sets in cancer histopathology reporting.

 
 :: References Top

1.
Raina S. Performing audit in histopathology. J Postgrad Med 2015;61:213.  Back to cited text no. 1
  Medknow Journal  
2.
Deodhar KK, Rekhi B, Menon S, Ganesh B. An audit of histopathology reports of carcinoma endometrium: Experience from a tertiary referral center. J Postgrad Med 2015;61:84-7.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
3.
Campbell F, Griffiths DF. Quantitative audit of the contents of histopathology reports. J Clin Pathol 1994;47:360-1.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Zuk JA, Kenyon WE, Myskow MW. Audit in histopathology: Description of an internal quality assessment scheme with analysis of preliminary results. J Clin Pathol 1991;44:10-6.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Appleton MA, Douglas-Jones AG, Morgan JM. Evidence of effectiveness of clinical audit in improving histopathology reporting standards of mastectomy specimens. J Clin Pathol 1998;51:30-3.  Back to cited text no. 5
    




 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 
Online since 12th February '04
2004 - Journal of Postgraduate Medicine
Official Publication of the Staff Society of the Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, India
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow