FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2790085871> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2790085871 endingPage "312" @default.
• W2790085871 startingPage "305" @default.
• W2790085871 abstract "Certain diagnoses in dermatopathology have significant implications for patient management and on occasion appropriate clinical care may be facilitated by a phone call from the reporting dermatopathologist to the referring doctor. Whether this is appropriate depends on a number of factors. The concept of ‘critical diagnoses’ is now well established in surgical pathology, having evolved from critical value policies in clinical pathology and haematology. However, only limited attempts have been made to assess perceptions among different clinical groups. We designed a survey to assess the attitudes of pathologists, dermatologists, surgeons and general practitioners as to what circumstances warrant telephone contact in addition to a standard written report, as well as their approaches to routine histology follow-up. The survey was distributed Australia-wide via a combination of specialist colleges, medical forums and collegiate contacts. A total of 262 responses were received, encompassing representations from all of the targeted specialties. Approximately 20% of respondents were aware of adverse outcomes or ‘near misses’ which they felt had been due in some part to inadequate communication of histopathology results. While most practitioners have formal systems in place to review histopathology reports, this practice is not universal. There were a number clinical situations where there was a discrepancy between the expectations of clinicians and those of pathologists, in particular with regard to a diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma as well as cutaneous lesions which might be associated with inherited cancer syndromes. It is our hope that the results of this study will facilitate discussion between pathologists and referring clinicians at a local level to minimise the potential for miscommunication. Certain diagnoses in dermatopathology have significant implications for patient management and on occasion appropriate clinical care may be facilitated by a phone call from the reporting dermatopathologist to the referring doctor. Whether this is appropriate depends on a number of factors. The concept of ‘critical diagnoses’ is now well established in surgical pathology, having evolved from critical value policies in clinical pathology and haematology. However, only limited attempts have been made to assess perceptions among different clinical groups. We designed a survey to assess the attitudes of pathologists, dermatologists, surgeons and general practitioners as to what circumstances warrant telephone contact in addition to a standard written report, as well as their approaches to routine histology follow-up. The survey was distributed Australia-wide via a combination of specialist colleges, medical forums and collegiate contacts. A total of 262 responses were received, encompassing representations from all of the targeted specialties. Approximately 20% of respondents were aware of adverse outcomes or ‘near misses’ which they felt had been due in some part to inadequate communication of histopathology results. While most practitioners have formal systems in place to review histopathology reports, this practice is not universal. There were a number clinical situations where there was a discrepancy between the expectations of clinicians and those of pathologists, in particular with regard to a diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma as well as cutaneous lesions which might be associated with inherited cancer syndromes. It is our hope that the results of this study will facilitate discussion between pathologists and referring clinicians at a local level to minimise the potential for miscommunication." @default.
• W2790085871 created "2018-03-29" @default.
• W2790085871 creator A5025071837 @default.
• W2790085871 creator A5054708039 @default.
• W2790085871 creator A5063764614 @default.
• W2790085871 date "2018-04-01" @default.
• W2790085871 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2790085871 title "‘Why don't they ever call?’ Expectations of clinicians and pathologists regarding the communication of critical diagnoses in dermatopathology" @default.
• W2790085871 cites W1576290892 @default.
• W2790085871 cites W1963968004 @default.
• W2790085871 cites W1991114268 @default.
• W2790085871 cites W1996788064 @default.
• W2790085871 cites W2001484527 @default.
• W2790085871 cites W2010529597 @default.
• W2790085871 cites W2037404424 @default.
• W2790085871 cites W2040706482 @default.
• W2790085871 cites W2043204927 @default.
• W2790085871 cites W2043812493 @default.
• W2790085871 cites W2071980243 @default.
• W2790085871 cites W2086455838 @default.
• W2790085871 cites W2121743808 @default.
• W2790085871 cites W2127916012 @default.
• W2790085871 cites W2136345766 @default.
• W2790085871 cites W2288693690 @default.
• W2790085871 cites W2323223816 @default.
• W2790085871 cites W2531706203 @default.
• W2790085871 cites W4232926183 @default.
• W2790085871 cites W4233624763 @default.
• W2790085871 cites W4246983596 @default.
• W2790085871 cites W4256293222 @default.
• W2790085871 cites W4317527428 @default.
• W2790085871 cites W4317527940 @default.
• W2790085871 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pathol.2017.10.015" @default.
• W2790085871 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29496200" @default.
• W2790085871 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2790085871 type Work @default.
• W2790085871 sameAs 2790085871 @default.
• W2790085871 citedByCount "6" @default.
• W2790085871 countsByYear W27900858712018 @default.
• W2790085871 countsByYear W27900858712020 @default.
• W2790085871 countsByYear W27900858712022 @default.
• W2790085871 countsByYear W27900858712023 @default.
• W2790085871 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2790085871 hasAuthorship W2790085871A5025071837 @default.
• W2790085871 hasAuthorship W2790085871A5054708039 @default.
• W2790085871 hasAuthorship W2790085871A5063764614 @default.
• W2790085871 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2790085871 hasConcept C2776032170 @default.
• W2790085871 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W2790085871 hasConcept C534262118 @default.
• W2790085871 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2790085871 hasConceptScore W2790085871C142724271 @default.
• W2790085871 hasConceptScore W2790085871C2776032170 @default.
• W2790085871 hasConceptScore W2790085871C512399662 @default.
• W2790085871 hasConceptScore W2790085871C534262118 @default.
• W2790085871 hasConceptScore W2790085871C71924100 @default.
• W2790085871 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2790085871 hasLocation W27900858711 @default.
• W2790085871 hasLocation W27900858712 @default.
• W2790085871 hasOpenAccess W2790085871 @default.
• W2790085871 hasPrimaryLocation W27900858711 @default.
• W2790085871 hasRelatedWork W1941549566 @default.
• W2790085871 hasRelatedWork W1981548613 @default.
• W2790085871 hasRelatedWork W2009626920 @default.
• W2790085871 hasRelatedWork W2040135871 @default.
• W2790085871 hasRelatedWork W2106178927 @default.
• W2790085871 hasRelatedWork W2162022996 @default.
• W2790085871 hasRelatedWork W2894398812 @default.
• W2790085871 hasRelatedWork W2982634898 @default.
• W2790085871 hasRelatedWork W4385516634 @default.
• W2790085871 hasRelatedWork W3111625934 @default.
• W2790085871 hasVolume "50" @default.
• W2790085871 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2790085871 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2790085871 magId "2790085871" @default.
• W2790085871 workType "article" @default.