Journal of Pathology Informatics Journal of Pathology Informatics
Contact us | Home | Login   |  Users Online: 658  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 


RESEARCH ARTICLE
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 32

Improving the creation and reporting of structured findings during digital pathology review


1 Sectra AB, Chalmers University of Technology, Sectra AB, Gothenburg, Sweden
2 Center for Medical Image Science and Visualization, Chalmers University of Technology, Sectra AB, Gothenburg, Sweden
3 Center for Medical Image Science and Visualization, Linköping University, Sectra AB, Linköping, Sweden

Correspondence Address:
Ida Cervin
Sectra AB, Chalmers University of Technology, Sectra AB, Gothenburg
Sweden
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2153-3539.186917

Rights and Permissions

Background: Today, pathology reporting consists of many separate tasks, carried out by multiple people. Common tasks include dictation during case review, transcription, verification of the transcription, report distribution, and report the key findings to follow-up registries. Introduction of digital workstations makes it possible to remove some of these tasks and simplify others. This study describes the work presented at the Nordic Symposium on Digital Pathology 2015, in Linköping, Sweden. Methods: We explored the possibility to have a digital tool that simplifies image review by assisting note-taking, and with minimal extra effort, populates a structured report. Thus, our prototype sees reporting as an activity interleaved with image review rather than a separate final step. We created an interface to collect, sort, and display findings for the most common reporting needs, such as tumor size, grading, and scoring. Results: The interface was designed to reduce the need to retain partial findings in the head or on paper, while at the same time be structured enough to support automatic extraction of key findings for follow-up registry reporting. The final prototype was evaluated with two pathologists, diagnosing complicated partial mastectomy cases. The pathologists experienced that the prototype aided them during the review and that it created a better overall workflow. Conclusions: These results show that it is feasible to simplify the reporting tasks in a way that is not distracting, while at the same time being able to automatically extract the key findings. This simplification is possible due to the realization that the structured format needed for automatic extraction of data can be used to offload the pathologists' working memory during the diagnostic review.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed904    
    Printed13    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded213    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal