Endorse those views wholeheartedly.
Wrinkles and scores don't spoil the slide for diagnosis - there's a
whole heap of other ways to do that. 

Terry

-----Original Message-----
From: histonet-bounces@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
[mailto:histonet-bounces@lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of Robert
Richmond
Sent: 05 December 2007 17:23
To: histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Subject: [Histonet] Re: Slide quality

You couldn't get the average pathologist, definitely including this one,
to even notice most of the folds and wrinkles that occur in sections.
We've become so used to ignoring them that when we teach
photomicrography to residents, we have to remind them not to photograph
areas in the slide with wrinkles in them - they look like hell when
they're projected.

I think that asking the pathologist to document wrinkles and folds is
unreasonable.

In the various labs I do pathology in, the recurrent problem is GI
biopsies with shatter and "window-blind" artifact. My requests to
address the problem are usually ignored. Very few pathology services do
separate processor runs for small specimens, and I've never been able to
get a laboratory to even consider it.

If I ran the zoo, I'd have a double headed microscope (not permitted for
pathologists in small pathology services), and I'd look at the day's run
of slides with a senior histotechnologist nearly every day.
That to my mind might launch an effective quality assurance program.

I agree with you (before you argue with me!) that most pathologists in
this circumstance would be so abusive that the exercise would be quite
unendurable for the technologist.

Bob Richmond
Samurai Pathologist
Knoxville TN

_______________________________________________
Histonet mailing list
Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet

_______________________________________________
Histonet mailing list
Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet