@article{8541,
  author = {Stephen S. Raab and Dana M. Grzybicki and Laura K. Mahood and Anil Parwani V and Shih-Fan Kuan and Uma N. Rao},
  title = {Effectiveness of random and focused review in detecting surgical pathology error.},
  abstract = {<p>Different error detection methods yield different error proportions and have variable benefits for surgical pathology divisions with limited resources. We performed a nonconcurrent cohort study at a large institution that practices subspecialty surgical pathology sign-out to compare the effectiveness and usefulness of error detection using a targeted 5% random review process and a focused review process. Pathologists reviewed 7,444 cases using a targeted 5% random review process and 380 cases using a focused review process. The numbers of errors detected by the targeted 5% random and focused review processes were 195 (2.6% of reviewed cases) and 50 (13.2%), respectively (P < .001). The numbers of major errors for the targeted 5% random and focused review processes was 27 (0.36%) and 12 (3.2%), respectively (P < .001). Focused review detects a higher proportion of errors and may be more effectively used for design of error reduction initiatives.</p>},
  year = {2008},
  journal = {Am J Clin Pathol},
  volume = {130},
  pages = {905-12},
  month = {12/2008},
  issn = {1943-7722},
  doi = {10.1309/AJCPPIA5D7MYKDWF},
  language = {eng},
}