Second opinion in breast pathology: Policy, practice and perception

Berta M. Geller, Heidi Nelson, Patricia (Patty) Carney, Donald L. Weaver, Tracy Onega, Kimberly H. Allison, Paul D. Frederick, Anna N A Tosteson, Joann G. Elmore

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

24 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aims To assess the laboratory policies, pathologists' clinical practice and perceptions about the value of second opinions for breast pathology cases among pathologists practising in the USA. Methods Cross-sectional data were collected from 252 pathologists who interpret breast specimens in eight states using a web-based survey. Descriptive statistics were used to characterise findings. Results Most participants had >10 years of experience interpreting breast specimens (64%), were not affiliated with academic centres (73%) and were not considered experts by their peers (79%). Laboratory policies mandating second opinions varied by diagnosis: invasive cancer 65%; ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) 56%; atypical ductal hyperplasia 36% and other benign cases 33%. 81% obtained second opinions in the absence of policies. Participants believed they improve diagnostic accuracy (96%) and protect from malpractice suits (83%), and were easy to obtain, did not take too much time and did not make them look less adequate. The most common (60%) approach to resolving differences between the first and second opinion is to ask for a third opinion, followed by reaching a consensus. Conclusions Laboratory-based second opinion policies vary for breast pathology but are most common for invasive cancer and DCIS cases. Pathologists have favourable attitudes towards second opinions, adhere to policies and obtain them even when policies are absent. Those without a formal policy may benefit from supportive clinical practices and systems that help obtain second opinions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)955-960
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Clinical Pathology
Volume67
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2014

Fingerprint

Breast
Referral and Consultation
Pathology
Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating
Malpractice
Neoplasms
Consensus
Pathologists

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Second opinion in breast pathology : Policy, practice and perception. / Geller, Berta M.; Nelson, Heidi; Carney, Patricia (Patty); Weaver, Donald L.; Onega, Tracy; Allison, Kimberly H.; Frederick, Paul D.; Tosteson, Anna N A; Elmore, Joann G.

In: Journal of Clinical Pathology, Vol. 67, No. 11, 01.11.2014, p. 955-960.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Geller, BM, Nelson, H, Carney, PP, Weaver, DL, Onega, T, Allison, KH, Frederick, PD, Tosteson, ANA & Elmore, JG 2014, 'Second opinion in breast pathology: Policy, practice and perception', Journal of Clinical Pathology, vol. 67, no. 11, pp. 955-960. https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202290
Geller, Berta M. ; Nelson, Heidi ; Carney, Patricia (Patty) ; Weaver, Donald L. ; Onega, Tracy ; Allison, Kimberly H. ; Frederick, Paul D. ; Tosteson, Anna N A ; Elmore, Joann G. / Second opinion in breast pathology : Policy, practice and perception. In: Journal of Clinical Pathology. 2014 ; Vol. 67, No. 11. pp. 955-960.
@article{b7349e0af0664b61909a1fe97d6f0f50,
title = "Second opinion in breast pathology: Policy, practice and perception",
abstract = "Aims To assess the laboratory policies, pathologists' clinical practice and perceptions about the value of second opinions for breast pathology cases among pathologists practising in the USA. Methods Cross-sectional data were collected from 252 pathologists who interpret breast specimens in eight states using a web-based survey. Descriptive statistics were used to characterise findings. Results Most participants had >10 years of experience interpreting breast specimens (64{\%}), were not affiliated with academic centres (73{\%}) and were not considered experts by their peers (79{\%}). Laboratory policies mandating second opinions varied by diagnosis: invasive cancer 65{\%}; ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) 56{\%}; atypical ductal hyperplasia 36{\%} and other benign cases 33{\%}. 81{\%} obtained second opinions in the absence of policies. Participants believed they improve diagnostic accuracy (96{\%}) and protect from malpractice suits (83{\%}), and were easy to obtain, did not take too much time and did not make them look less adequate. The most common (60{\%}) approach to resolving differences between the first and second opinion is to ask for a third opinion, followed by reaching a consensus. Conclusions Laboratory-based second opinion policies vary for breast pathology but are most common for invasive cancer and DCIS cases. Pathologists have favourable attitudes towards second opinions, adhere to policies and obtain them even when policies are absent. Those without a formal policy may benefit from supportive clinical practices and systems that help obtain second opinions.",
author = "Geller, {Berta M.} and Heidi Nelson and Carney, {Patricia (Patty)} and Weaver, {Donald L.} and Tracy Onega and Allison, {Kimberly H.} and Frederick, {Paul D.} and Tosteson, {Anna N A} and Elmore, {Joann G.}",
year = "2014",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202290",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "67",
pages = "955--960",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Pathology - Clinical Molecular Pathology",
issn = "0021-9746",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Second opinion in breast pathology

T2 - Policy, practice and perception

AU - Geller, Berta M.

AU - Nelson, Heidi

AU - Carney, Patricia (Patty)

AU - Weaver, Donald L.

AU - Onega, Tracy

AU - Allison, Kimberly H.

AU - Frederick, Paul D.

AU - Tosteson, Anna N A

AU - Elmore, Joann G.

PY - 2014/11/1

Y1 - 2014/11/1

N2 - Aims To assess the laboratory policies, pathologists' clinical practice and perceptions about the value of second opinions for breast pathology cases among pathologists practising in the USA. Methods Cross-sectional data were collected from 252 pathologists who interpret breast specimens in eight states using a web-based survey. Descriptive statistics were used to characterise findings. Results Most participants had >10 years of experience interpreting breast specimens (64%), were not affiliated with academic centres (73%) and were not considered experts by their peers (79%). Laboratory policies mandating second opinions varied by diagnosis: invasive cancer 65%; ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) 56%; atypical ductal hyperplasia 36% and other benign cases 33%. 81% obtained second opinions in the absence of policies. Participants believed they improve diagnostic accuracy (96%) and protect from malpractice suits (83%), and were easy to obtain, did not take too much time and did not make them look less adequate. The most common (60%) approach to resolving differences between the first and second opinion is to ask for a third opinion, followed by reaching a consensus. Conclusions Laboratory-based second opinion policies vary for breast pathology but are most common for invasive cancer and DCIS cases. Pathologists have favourable attitudes towards second opinions, adhere to policies and obtain them even when policies are absent. Those without a formal policy may benefit from supportive clinical practices and systems that help obtain second opinions.

AB - Aims To assess the laboratory policies, pathologists' clinical practice and perceptions about the value of second opinions for breast pathology cases among pathologists practising in the USA. Methods Cross-sectional data were collected from 252 pathologists who interpret breast specimens in eight states using a web-based survey. Descriptive statistics were used to characterise findings. Results Most participants had >10 years of experience interpreting breast specimens (64%), were not affiliated with academic centres (73%) and were not considered experts by their peers (79%). Laboratory policies mandating second opinions varied by diagnosis: invasive cancer 65%; ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) 56%; atypical ductal hyperplasia 36% and other benign cases 33%. 81% obtained second opinions in the absence of policies. Participants believed they improve diagnostic accuracy (96%) and protect from malpractice suits (83%), and were easy to obtain, did not take too much time and did not make them look less adequate. The most common (60%) approach to resolving differences between the first and second opinion is to ask for a third opinion, followed by reaching a consensus. Conclusions Laboratory-based second opinion policies vary for breast pathology but are most common for invasive cancer and DCIS cases. Pathologists have favourable attitudes towards second opinions, adhere to policies and obtain them even when policies are absent. Those without a formal policy may benefit from supportive clinical practices and systems that help obtain second opinions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84908495744&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84908495744&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202290

DO - 10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202290

M3 - Article

C2 - 25053542

AN - SCOPUS:84908495744

VL - 67

SP - 955

EP - 960

JO - Journal of Clinical Pathology - Clinical Molecular Pathology

JF - Journal of Clinical Pathology - Clinical Molecular Pathology

SN - 0021-9746

IS - 11

ER -