Michael wrote: <>

I think the practice of having two identifiers on each piece in the puzzle
can help - for example, the name and number on blocks, slides, paperwork. It
is too easy to mix up one identifier, especially if hand-written (though I
have seen some pretty poor text on machine-scribed slides too). Then, of
course, it has to be mandatory for each person handling the case to check
each part against the other parts at each step (Paperwork to containers,
containers to cassette, block to slide, slides to paperwork etc). This is
one area where I think computer-generated lists can help keep mistakes down
by eliminating transcription errors. In the end we will always depend on
humans and so will always end up with a mistake somewhere (But hopefully not
in my lab!). I think it was Lee Luna who wrote an article on QA at one time
which basically said "Be careful!" This is one area where procedures should
be detailed and adhered to rigorously, no excuses accepted.

Tim Morken
Atlanta

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Fredrickson [mailto:mfredrickson@cohenderm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 9:06 AM
To: histonet@pathology.swmed.edu
Subject: Quality Assurance measures



In regard to case mix-ups, what is currently being done in situations where
practices do subspecialty sign out (for example practices that do ONLY skin,
breast  or prostate?)  In these labs, the only option is to have specimens
of the same type back to back.  I think this situation is even more
dangerous when slides are pre-labeled?   Any insights would be appreciated. 

Michael Fredrickson
Lab Manager
Cohen Dermatopathology
Newton MA 02464