The format type has impact on the quality of pathology reports of oncological lung resection specimens

Abstract

Most pathology reports are in a narrative form without a given structure and occasionally lack important information. Here we show that the format of pathology reports of oncological lung resection specimens correlates with the quality of the reports. All pathology reports of oncological lung resection specimens between 01/02 and 04/11 (N = 878) were classified into descriptive reports (DR, N = 249), structured reports (SR, N = 415) as well as template based synoptic reports (TBSR, N = 214) and compared regarding the content of organ specific essential data (ED). The amount of recorded ED was summarized in an essential data score (EDS). Median EDS of DR was 8, of SR 9, and of TBSR 10. Only 28.7% of all reports had an EDS of 10; divided into the report types 2.6% of DR, 16.4% of SR and 88.4% of TBSR obtained an EDS of 10 (paired comparison: P < 0.0001). Traditional descriptive reports showed the lowest quality sometimes lacking important information and clarity of data layout whereas the template based synoptic reports reached the highest quality level. The broader use of structured reports is recommended for oncological lung resection specimens as they lead to a reduction of failed data transfer and therefore to an increase of quality.

Keywords: Lung cancer; Oncology; Pathology; Quality; Standardization; Synoptic reports.