A survey of reporting of colorectal cancer in Scotland: compliance with guidelines and effect of proforma reporting
Aims The main purpose of the study was to present a baseline audit of reporting of colorectal cancers resection specimens in Scotland, audited against the Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) standards (2007) and NHS Quality Improvement Scotland (NHS QIS) standards. Methods 50 consecutive rectal a...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of clinical pathology 2014-06, Vol.67 (6), p.499-505 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 505 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 499 |
container_title | Journal of clinical pathology |
container_volume | 67 |
creator | Woods, Y L Mukhtar, S McClements, P Lang, J Steele, R J Carey, F A |
description | Aims The main purpose of the study was to present a baseline audit of reporting of colorectal cancers resection specimens in Scotland, audited against the Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) standards (2007) and NHS Quality Improvement Scotland (NHS QIS) standards. Methods 50 consecutive rectal and 50 consecutive colonic cancer cases from 2011 were audited from 10 Scottish health boards involved in colorectal cancer reporting (n=953). The rates of reporting of serosal involvement, extramural venous invasion (EMVI) and the mean numbers of lymph nodes found were audited against RCPath standards and compared between units that routinely used a reporting proforma versus those that did not. Results The performance in reporting of rectal cancer was generally worse than for colonic cancer, with only three units meeting the RCPath standards for reporting of rectal cancer. There were significant differences between units that routinely used a proforma, with the non-proforma group failing to meet the minimum standards for both serosal involvement (6%) and EMVI (24%). In the non-proforma group, 56% of rectal cases had a mean lymph node count of 12 or more compared with 81% in the proforma group. Conclusions Significant differences exist in the frequencies with which important adverse prognostic features are reported by pathologists across 10 Scottish health boards. This has potential implications for patient care. Health boards that make routine use of reporting proformas are more likely to meet RCPath guidelines for reporting of these important pathological parameters. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1136/jclinpath-2013-202060 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1526129028</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1526129028</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b378t-a0a0e3f008226b7a2c32a3d1c82ba781f696a2e8ae19508982e91a59d4d66da63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkV9LwzAUxYMobk4_ghLwxZdqbtqmrW9j-A8GPqjPIU1vt462qUmr7Nubsqngky8J4fzuuSccQs6BXQOE4maj66rtVL8OOIPQH5wJdkCmECU8iCASh2TKGIcgSyIxISfObZgHEwiPyYRHsUgiiKfEzakb7AduqSmpxc7YvmpX40Ob2ljUvaqpVq1GS6uWvmjT16otbr3cdHU1CvSz6td0NVQF-kjoqNcplqWfHX06a0pjG_XrfkqOSlU7PNvfM_J2f_e6eAyWzw9Pi_kyyMMk7QPFFMOwZCzlXOSJ4jrkKixApzxXSQqlyITimCqELGZplnLMQMVZERVCFEqEM3K18_UR3gd0vWwqp7H2H0AzOAkxF8AzxlOPXv5BN2awrU8nwa9iUQYxeCreUdoa5yyWsrNVo-xWApNjK_KnFTm2Inet-LmLvfuQN1j8TH3X4AG2A_Jm80_PL1LImts</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1781049151</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A survey of reporting of colorectal cancer in Scotland: compliance with guidelines and effect of proforma reporting</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>BMJ Journals - NESLi2</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Woods, Y L ; Mukhtar, S ; McClements, P ; Lang, J ; Steele, R J ; Carey, F A</creator><creatorcontrib>Woods, Y L ; Mukhtar, S ; McClements, P ; Lang, J ; Steele, R J ; Carey, F A</creatorcontrib><description>Aims The main purpose of the study was to present a baseline audit of reporting of colorectal cancers resection specimens in Scotland, audited against the Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) standards (2007) and NHS Quality Improvement Scotland (NHS QIS) standards. Methods 50 consecutive rectal and 50 consecutive colonic cancer cases from 2011 were audited from 10 Scottish health boards involved in colorectal cancer reporting (n=953). The rates of reporting of serosal involvement, extramural venous invasion (EMVI) and the mean numbers of lymph nodes found were audited against RCPath standards and compared between units that routinely used a reporting proforma versus those that did not. Results The performance in reporting of rectal cancer was generally worse than for colonic cancer, with only three units meeting the RCPath standards for reporting of rectal cancer. There were significant differences between units that routinely used a proforma, with the non-proforma group failing to meet the minimum standards for both serosal involvement (6%) and EMVI (24%). In the non-proforma group, 56% of rectal cases had a mean lymph node count of 12 or more compared with 81% in the proforma group. Conclusions Significant differences exist in the frequencies with which important adverse prognostic features are reported by pathologists across 10 Scottish health boards. This has potential implications for patient care. Health boards that make routine use of reporting proformas are more likely to meet RCPath guidelines for reporting of these important pathological parameters.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-9746</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1472-4146</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/jclinpath-2013-202060</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24567415</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JCPAAK</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BMJ Publishing Group LTD</publisher><subject>Audits ; Colorectal cancer ; Colorectal Neoplasms - epidemiology ; Colorectal Neoplasms - pathology ; Colorectal Neoplasms - therapy ; Compliance ; Datasets ; Diagnostic Services - standards ; Guideline Adherence - standards ; Histopathology ; Humans ; Intestinal Mucosa - pathology ; Laboratories ; Lymph Node Excision - standards ; Lymphatic Metastasis ; Lymphatic system ; Medical Audit ; Medical Records - standards ; Neoplasm Invasiveness ; Neoplasm Staging ; Pathology ; Pathology, Clinical - standards ; Practice Guidelines as Topic - standards ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Quality control ; Quality Indicators, Health Care - standards ; Quality standards ; Research Design - standards ; Scotland - epidemiology ; Studies ; Veins - pathology</subject><ispartof>Journal of clinical pathology, 2014-06, Vol.67 (6), p.499-505</ispartof><rights>Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions</rights><rights>Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.</rights><rights>Copyright: 2014 Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b378t-a0a0e3f008226b7a2c32a3d1c82ba781f696a2e8ae19508982e91a59d4d66da63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b378t-a0a0e3f008226b7a2c32a3d1c82ba781f696a2e8ae19508982e91a59d4d66da63</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://jcp.bmj.com/content/67/6/499.full.pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gbmj$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://jcp.bmj.com/content/67/6/499.full$$EHTML$$P50$$Gbmj$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>114,115,314,780,784,3196,23571,27924,27925,77600,77631</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24567415$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Woods, Y L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mukhtar, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McClements, P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lang, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steele, R J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carey, F A</creatorcontrib><title>A survey of reporting of colorectal cancer in Scotland: compliance with guidelines and effect of proforma reporting</title><title>Journal of clinical pathology</title><addtitle>J Clin Pathol</addtitle><description>Aims The main purpose of the study was to present a baseline audit of reporting of colorectal cancers resection specimens in Scotland, audited against the Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) standards (2007) and NHS Quality Improvement Scotland (NHS QIS) standards. Methods 50 consecutive rectal and 50 consecutive colonic cancer cases from 2011 were audited from 10 Scottish health boards involved in colorectal cancer reporting (n=953). The rates of reporting of serosal involvement, extramural venous invasion (EMVI) and the mean numbers of lymph nodes found were audited against RCPath standards and compared between units that routinely used a reporting proforma versus those that did not. Results The performance in reporting of rectal cancer was generally worse than for colonic cancer, with only three units meeting the RCPath standards for reporting of rectal cancer. There were significant differences between units that routinely used a proforma, with the non-proforma group failing to meet the minimum standards for both serosal involvement (6%) and EMVI (24%). In the non-proforma group, 56% of rectal cases had a mean lymph node count of 12 or more compared with 81% in the proforma group. Conclusions Significant differences exist in the frequencies with which important adverse prognostic features are reported by pathologists across 10 Scottish health boards. This has potential implications for patient care. Health boards that make routine use of reporting proformas are more likely to meet RCPath guidelines for reporting of these important pathological parameters.</description><subject>Audits</subject><subject>Colorectal cancer</subject><subject>Colorectal Neoplasms - epidemiology</subject><subject>Colorectal Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Colorectal Neoplasms - therapy</subject><subject>Compliance</subject><subject>Datasets</subject><subject>Diagnostic Services - standards</subject><subject>Guideline Adherence - standards</subject><subject>Histopathology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intestinal Mucosa - pathology</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Lymph Node Excision - standards</subject><subject>Lymphatic Metastasis</subject><subject>Lymphatic system</subject><subject>Medical Audit</subject><subject>Medical Records - standards</subject><subject>Neoplasm Invasiveness</subject><subject>Neoplasm Staging</subject><subject>Pathology</subject><subject>Pathology, Clinical - standards</subject><subject>Practice Guidelines as Topic - standards</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Quality control</subject><subject>Quality Indicators, Health Care - standards</subject><subject>Quality standards</subject><subject>Research Design - standards</subject><subject>Scotland - epidemiology</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Veins - pathology</subject><issn>0021-9746</issn><issn>1472-4146</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkV9LwzAUxYMobk4_ghLwxZdqbtqmrW9j-A8GPqjPIU1vt462qUmr7Nubsqngky8J4fzuuSccQs6BXQOE4maj66rtVL8OOIPQH5wJdkCmECU8iCASh2TKGIcgSyIxISfObZgHEwiPyYRHsUgiiKfEzakb7AduqSmpxc7YvmpX40Ob2ljUvaqpVq1GS6uWvmjT16otbr3cdHU1CvSz6td0NVQF-kjoqNcplqWfHX06a0pjG_XrfkqOSlU7PNvfM_J2f_e6eAyWzw9Pi_kyyMMk7QPFFMOwZCzlXOSJ4jrkKixApzxXSQqlyITimCqELGZplnLMQMVZERVCFEqEM3K18_UR3gd0vWwqp7H2H0AzOAkxF8AzxlOPXv5BN2awrU8nwa9iUQYxeCreUdoa5yyWsrNVo-xWApNjK_KnFTm2Inet-LmLvfuQN1j8TH3X4AG2A_Jm80_PL1LImts</recordid><startdate>20140601</startdate><enddate>20140601</enddate><creator>Woods, Y L</creator><creator>Mukhtar, S</creator><creator>McClements, P</creator><creator>Lang, J</creator><creator>Steele, R J</creator><creator>Carey, F A</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140601</creationdate><title>A survey of reporting of colorectal cancer in Scotland: compliance with guidelines and effect of proforma reporting</title><author>Woods, Y L ; Mukhtar, S ; McClements, P ; Lang, J ; Steele, R J ; Carey, F A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b378t-a0a0e3f008226b7a2c32a3d1c82ba781f696a2e8ae19508982e91a59d4d66da63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Audits</topic><topic>Colorectal cancer</topic><topic>Colorectal Neoplasms - epidemiology</topic><topic>Colorectal Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Colorectal Neoplasms - therapy</topic><topic>Compliance</topic><topic>Datasets</topic><topic>Diagnostic Services - standards</topic><topic>Guideline Adherence - standards</topic><topic>Histopathology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intestinal Mucosa - pathology</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Lymph Node Excision - standards</topic><topic>Lymphatic Metastasis</topic><topic>Lymphatic system</topic><topic>Medical Audit</topic><topic>Medical Records - standards</topic><topic>Neoplasm Invasiveness</topic><topic>Neoplasm Staging</topic><topic>Pathology</topic><topic>Pathology, Clinical - standards</topic><topic>Practice Guidelines as Topic - standards</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Quality control</topic><topic>Quality Indicators, Health Care - standards</topic><topic>Quality standards</topic><topic>Research Design - standards</topic><topic>Scotland - epidemiology</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Veins - pathology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Woods, Y L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mukhtar, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McClements, P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lang, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steele, R J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carey, F A</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of clinical pathology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Woods, Y L</au><au>Mukhtar, S</au><au>McClements, P</au><au>Lang, J</au><au>Steele, R J</au><au>Carey, F A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A survey of reporting of colorectal cancer in Scotland: compliance with guidelines and effect of proforma reporting</atitle><jtitle>Journal of clinical pathology</jtitle><addtitle>J Clin Pathol</addtitle><date>2014-06-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>67</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>499</spage><epage>505</epage><pages>499-505</pages><issn>0021-9746</issn><eissn>1472-4146</eissn><coden>JCPAAK</coden><abstract>Aims The main purpose of the study was to present a baseline audit of reporting of colorectal cancers resection specimens in Scotland, audited against the Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) standards (2007) and NHS Quality Improvement Scotland (NHS QIS) standards. Methods 50 consecutive rectal and 50 consecutive colonic cancer cases from 2011 were audited from 10 Scottish health boards involved in colorectal cancer reporting (n=953). The rates of reporting of serosal involvement, extramural venous invasion (EMVI) and the mean numbers of lymph nodes found were audited against RCPath standards and compared between units that routinely used a reporting proforma versus those that did not. Results The performance in reporting of rectal cancer was generally worse than for colonic cancer, with only three units meeting the RCPath standards for reporting of rectal cancer. There were significant differences between units that routinely used a proforma, with the non-proforma group failing to meet the minimum standards for both serosal involvement (6%) and EMVI (24%). In the non-proforma group, 56% of rectal cases had a mean lymph node count of 12 or more compared with 81% in the proforma group. Conclusions Significant differences exist in the frequencies with which important adverse prognostic features are reported by pathologists across 10 Scottish health boards. This has potential implications for patient care. Health boards that make routine use of reporting proformas are more likely to meet RCPath guidelines for reporting of these important pathological parameters.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</pub><pmid>24567415</pmid><doi>10.1136/jclinpath-2013-202060</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0021-9746 |
ispartof | Journal of clinical pathology, 2014-06, Vol.67 (6), p.499-505 |
issn | 0021-9746 1472-4146 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1526129028 |
source | MEDLINE; BMJ Journals - NESLi2; PubMed Central |
subjects | Audits Colorectal cancer Colorectal Neoplasms - epidemiology Colorectal Neoplasms - pathology Colorectal Neoplasms - therapy Compliance Datasets Diagnostic Services - standards Guideline Adherence - standards Histopathology Humans Intestinal Mucosa - pathology Laboratories Lymph Node Excision - standards Lymphatic Metastasis Lymphatic system Medical Audit Medical Records - standards Neoplasm Invasiveness Neoplasm Staging Pathology Pathology, Clinical - standards Practice Guidelines as Topic - standards Predictive Value of Tests Quality control Quality Indicators, Health Care - standards Quality standards Research Design - standards Scotland - epidemiology Studies Veins - pathology |
title | A survey of reporting of colorectal cancer in Scotland: compliance with guidelines and effect of proforma reporting |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-21T09%3A39%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20survey%20of%20reporting%20of%20colorectal%20cancer%20in%20Scotland:%20compliance%20with%20guidelines%20and%20effect%20of%20proforma%20reporting&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20clinical%20pathology&rft.au=Woods,%20Y%20L&rft.date=2014-06-01&rft.volume=67&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=499&rft.epage=505&rft.pages=499-505&rft.issn=0021-9746&rft.eissn=1472-4146&rft.coden=JCPAAK&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/jclinpath-2013-202060&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1526129028%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1781049151&rft_id=info:pmid/24567415&rfr_iscdi=true |