León ER, Lifshitz GA, Alonso RP, Aguirre GJ

Language: Spanish
References: 18
Page: 88-92
PDF size: 232.70 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: Medical care quality is assessed by a series of actions performed in a periodic and continuous way in order to timely identify and to correct defficiencies.
Objective: To evaluate the quality of the anatomopathologic diagnosis in three kinds of specimens: cervix uteri biopsies, cervical conizations and the whole cervix as part of the hysterectomy surgical pieces.
Material and methods: In a six-month period 310 biopsy-specimens, cone and hysterectomy specimens were reviewed, the sample size was determined by means of statistical calculation and the confidence interval was 95%. We included 60 cases with malignant tumors and 250 with benign lesions. Assessment included available resources, activity developed routinely by all personnel, diagnostic certainty and the result expressed in a written report.
Results: The analysis reveled that the anatomopathological studies in this Department has low quality. The main problems were: 1) poor quality in the histological preparations in a high proportions of cases; 2) a long time displayed between the material reception and the elaboration of the written final inform (14.7 ± 7.5 days); 3) a low diagnostic accuracy (kappa = 0.53).
Conclusions: Contrary to any supposition, a lack of resources was not the more important factor in the problems’ origin. They were the service’s bad organization; the lack of individual productivity indicators; the absence of personal motivation; and the adequate personal preparation in any technicians and doctors. Continuous or periodical quality control evaluations are the only one mechanism which permit detect this problems and their opportune correction.

REFERENCES

1. Kaouru I. “What is total quality control”? The Japanese way. USA: Edit. Prentice-Hall Inc., 1985.

2. Deming WE. Calidad, productividad y competitividad. Madrid: Ed. Díaz Santos, 1989.

3. Donabedian A. La calidad en la atención médica. Definición y métodos de evaluación. México: Ed. Científicas, Prensa Médica Mexicana, 1984.

4. Donabedian A. Veinte años de investigación en torno a la calidad de la atención médica. 1964-1984. Salud Publica Mex 1988;30:202-215.

5. Donabedian A. Garantía y monitoría de la calidad en la atención médica. Colección Perspectivas de Salud Pública. Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública 1990;10.

6. Radhi J, Nyssen J, Murphy F. Quality assurance in anatomical pathology. Ann RCPSC1966;29:19-22.

7. Zarbo R, Kramer B, Rickert R. Quality assurance in anatomical pathology. Am J Clin Pathol 1990;5:145-150.

8. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Recommendations on quality control and quality assurance in anatomical pathology. Hum Pathol 1991;22:1099-1101.

9. Alonso RP, Lazcano PCE. Quality control in cytopathology laboratories in six Latin American countries. In: Wied LG, Keebler CM, Rosenthal DL, et al. Compendium on quality assurance proficiency testing and workload limitations in clinical cytology. Tutorials of Cytology: Chicago Ill, 1995.

10. Kato I, Santamaría M, Aristizábal N, et al. Inter-observer variation in cytological and histological diagnoses for cervical neoplasia and associated factors. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:1167-1174.

11. Alonso RP, Lazcano PCE, Duarte TR y col. Reproducibilidad diagnóstica del Papanicolaou en 2 zonas de México. Necesidad de mecanismos de control de calidad. Bol Of Sanit Panam 1996;121(30):518-526.

12. Lazcano PEC, Alonso RP, Martínez AC, et al. Reproducibility study of cervical cytopathology in Mexico: A need for regulation and professional accreditation. Diagn Cytopathol 1997;17(1):20-24.

13. Lazcano PEC, Alonso RP, Martínez AC y col. Concordancia diagnóstica en citología ginecológica. Rev Invest Clin 1997;49:111-116.

14. Lazcano PEC, Alonso RP, López CL, et al. Validity and reproducibility of cytologic diagnosis in a sample of cervical cancer screening centers in Mexico. Acta Cytol 1997;41(2):277-284.

15. Reyes E, Vargas-González R. Calidad del informe de patología en texto libre en gastrectomías por carcinoma. Rev Gastroenterol Mex 2006;71:127-132.

16. Hernández AM, Alonso P, Lazcano PCE. Evaluación del programa de detección oportuna de cáncer cervical en México. Rev Vinculación 1999;2(10-11):20-22.

17. Penner D. Quality control and quality evaluation in histopathology and cytology. Pathol Annu 1973;8:1-19.

18. Rosai J. Rosai and Ackerman’s Surgical Pathology. Appendix E. Guidelines for handling of most common and important surgical specimens, 9th ed. London, New York: Mosby Edinburgh, 2004;p:2911.