Search

In the realm of health care, numerous generative and nongenerative artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI-ML) tools have been developed and deployed. Simultaneously, manufacturers of medical devices are leveraging AI-ML. However, the adoption of AI in health care raises several concerns, including safety, security, ethical biases, accountability, trust, economic impact, and environmental effects. Effective regulation can mitigate some of these risks, promote fairness, establish standards, and advocate for more sustainable AI practices. Regulating AI tools not only ensures their safe and effective adoption but also fosters public trust. It is important that regulations remain flexible to accommodate rapid advances in this field to support innovation and also not to add additional burden to some of our preexisting and well-established frameworks. This study covers regional and global regulatory aspects of AI-ML including data privacy, software as a medical device, agency approval and clearance pathways, reimbursement, and laboratory-developed tests., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The Molecular Pathology Section, Cleveland Clinic (Cleveland, OH), has undergone enhancement of its testing portfolio and processes. An Excel 2013- and paper-based data-management system was replaced with a commercially available laboratory information-management system (LIMS) software application, a separate bioinformatics platform, customized test-interpretation applications, a dedicated sample-accessioning service, and a results-releasing software application. The customized LIMS solution manages complex workflows, large-scale data packets, and process automation. A customized approach was required because, in a survey of commercially available off-the-shelf software products, none met the diverse and complex needs of this molecular diagnostics service. The project utilized the expertise of clinical laboratorians, pathologists, genetics counselors, bioinformaticians, and systems analysts in partnering with software-engineering consultants to design and implement a solution. Concurrently, Agile software-building best practices were formulated, which may be emulated for scalable and cost-effective laboratory-authored software., (Copyright © 2022 Association for Molecular Pathology and American Society for Investigative Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The authors review the rationale behind and approaches to testing for COVID-19, the quality of currently available tests, the role of data analytics in strategizing testing, and using the electronic medical record and other programs designed to steward COVID-19 testing and follow-up of patients., (Copyright © 2021 The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. All Rights Reserved.)

Context.—: The Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) system is supposed to facilitate interoperability, and it is the federally required code for exchanging laboratory data., Objective.—: To provide an overview of LOINC, emerging issues related to its use, and areas relevant to the pathology laboratory, including the subtleties of test code selection and importance of mapping the correct codes to local test menus., Data Sources.—: This review is based on peer-reviewed literature, federal regulations, working group reports, the LOINC database (version 2.65), experience using LOINC in the laboratory at several large health care systems, and insight from laboratory information system vendors., Conclusions.—: The current LOINC database contains more than 55 000 numeric codes specific for laboratory tests. Each record in the LOINC database includes 6 major axes/parts for the unique specification of each individual observation or measurement. Assigning LOINC codes to a laboratory's test menu should be a defined process. In some cases, LOINC can aid in distinguishing laboratory data among different information systems, whereby such benefits are not achievable by relying on the laboratory test name alone. Criticisms of LOINC include the complexity and resource-intensive process of selecting the most correct code for each laboratory test, the real-world experience that these codes are not uniformly assigned across laboratories, and that 2 tests that may have the same appropriately assigned LOINC code may not necessarily have equivalency to permit interoperability of their result data. The coding system's limitations, which subsequently reduce the potential utility of LOINC, are poorly understood outside of the laboratory.

Context: - There is growing interest in the use of digital pathology, especially whole slide imaging, for diagnostic purposes. Many issues need to be considered when incorporating this technology into a clinical laboratory. The College of American Pathologists (CAP) established a Digital Pathology Committee to support the development of CAP programs related to digital pathology. One of its many initiatives was a panel discussion entitled "Implementing Whole-Slide Imaging for Clinical Use: What to Do and What to Avoid," given for 3 years at the CAP annual meetings starting in 2014., Objectives: - To review major issues to consider when implementing whole slide imaging for clinical purposes as covered during the panel discussion., Design: - The views expressed and recommendations given are based primarily on the personal experience of the authors as early adopters of this technology. It is not intended to be an exhaustive review of digital pathology., Results: - Implementation is best approached in phases. Early efforts are directed toward identifying initial clinical applications and assembling an implementation team. Scanner selection should be based on intended use and budget. Recognizing pathologist concerns over the use of digital pathology for diagnostic purposes, ensuring adequate training, and performing appropriate validation studies will enhance adoption. Once implemented, the transition period from glass slide to image-based diagnostics will be associated with challenges, especially those related to a hybrid glass slide-digital slide workflow., Conclusions: - With appropriate preparation, planning, and stepwise implementation, whole slide imaging can be used safely and reliably for frozen sections, consultation, quality assurance, and primary diagnosis.

Context: -Recognition of the importance of informatics to the practice of pathology has surged. Training residents in pathology informatics has been a daunting task for most residency programs in the United States because faculty often lacks experience and training resources. Nevertheless, developing resident competence in informatics is essential for the future of pathology as a specialty., Objective: -To develop and deliver a pathology informatics curriculum and instructional framework that guides pathology residency programs in training residents in critical pathology informatics knowledge and skills, and meets Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Informatics Milestones., Design: -The College of American Pathologists, Association of Pathology Chairs, and Association for Pathology Informatics formed a partnership and expert work group to identify critical pathology informatics training outcomes and to create a highly adaptable curriculum and instructional approach, supported by a multiyear change management strategy., Results: -Pathology Informatics Essentials for Residents (PIER) is a rigorous approach for educating all pathology residents in important pathology informatics knowledge and skills. PIER includes an instructional resource guide and toolkit for incorporating informatics training into residency programs that vary in needs, size, settings, and resources. PIER is available at http://www.apcprods.org/PIER (accessed April 6, 2016)., Conclusions: -PIER is an important contribution to informatics training in pathology residency programs. PIER introduces pathology trainees to broadly useful informatics concepts and tools that are relevant to practice. PIER provides residency program directors with a means to implement a standardized informatics training curriculum, to adapt the approach to local program needs, and to evaluate resident performance and progress over time.

Context: Recognition of the importance of informatics to the practice of pathology has surged. Training residents in pathology informatics has been a daunting task for most residency programs in the United States because faculty often lacks experience and training resources. Nevertheless, developing resident competence in informatics is essential for the future of pathology as a specialty., Objective: To develop and deliver a pathology informatics curriculum and instructional framework that guides pathology residency programs in training residents in critical pathology informatics knowledge and skills, and meets Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Informatics Milestones., Design: The College of American Pathologists, Association of Pathology Chairs, and Association for Pathology Informatics formed a partnership and expert work group to identify critical pathology informatics training outcomes and to create a highly adaptable curriculum and instructional approach, supported by a multiyear change management strategy., Results: Pathology Informatics Essentials for Residents (PIER) is a rigorous approach for educating all pathology residents in important pathology informatics knowledge and skills. PIER includes an instructional resource guide and toolkit for incorporating informatics training into residency programs that vary in needs, size, settings, and resources. PIER is available at http://www.apcprods.org/PIER (accessed April 6, 2016)., Conclusions: PIER is an important contribution to informatics training in pathology residency programs. PIER introduces pathology trainees to broadly useful informatics concepts and tools that are relevant to practice. PIER provides residency program directors with a means to implement a standardized informatics training curriculum, to adapt the approach to local program needs, and to evaluate resident performance and progress over time.

Context: Recognition of the importance of informatics to the practice of pathology has surged. Training residents in pathology informatics have been a daunting task for most residency programs in the United States because faculty often lacks experience and training resources. Nevertheless, developing resident competence in informatics is essential for the future of pathology as a specialty., Objective: The objective of the study is to develop and deliver a pathology informatics curriculum and instructional framework that guides pathology residency programs in training residents in critical pathology informatics knowledge and skills and meets Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Informatics Milestones., Design: The College of American Pathologists, Association of Pathology Chairs, and Association for Pathology Informatics formed a partnership and expert work group to identify critical pathology informatics training outcomes and to create a highly adaptable curriculum and instructional approach, supported by a multiyear change management strategy., Results: Pathology Informatics Essentials for Residents (PIER) is a rigorous approach for educating all pathology residents in important pathology informatics knowledge and skills. PIER includes an instructional resource guide and toolkit for incorporating informatics training into residency programs that vary in needs, size, settings, and resources. PIER is available at http://www.apcprods.org/PIER (accessed April 6, 2016)., Conclusions: PIER is an important contribution to informatics training in pathology residency programs. PIER introduces pathology trainees to broadly useful informatics concepts and tools that are relevant to practice. PIER provides residency program directors with a means to implement a standardized informatics training curriculum, to adapt the approach to local program needs, and to evaluate resident performance and progress over time.

Background: Although pathology informatics (PI) is essential to modern pathology practice, the field is often poorly understood. Pathologists who have received little to no exposure to informatics, either in training or in practice, may not recognize the roles that informatics serves in pathology. The purpose of this study was to characterize perceptions of PI by noninformatics-oriented pathologists and to do so at two large centers with differing informatics environments., Methods: Pathology trainees and staff at Cleveland Clinic (CC) and Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) were surveyed. At MGH, pathology department leadership has promoted a pervasive informatics presence through practice, training, and research. At CC, PI efforts focus on production systems that serve a multi-site integrated health system and a reference laboratory, and on the development of applications oriented to department operations. The survey assessed perceived definition of PI, interest in PI, and perceived utility of PI., Results: The survey was completed by 107 noninformatics-oriented pathologists and trainees. A majority viewed informatics positively. Except among MGH trainees, confusion of PI with information technology (IT) and help desk services was prominent, even in those who indicated they understood informatics. Attendings and trainees indicated desire to learn more about PI. While most acknowledged that having some level of PI knowledge would be professionally useful and advantageous, only a minority plan to utilize it., Conclusions: Informatics is viewed positively by the majority of noninformatics pathologists at two large centers with differing informatics orientations. Differences in departmental informatics culture can be attributed to the varying perceptions of PI by different individuals. Incorrect perceptions exist, such as conflating PI with IT and help desk services, even among those who claim to understand PI. Further efforts by the PI community could address such misperceptions, which could help enable a better understanding of what PI is and is not, and potentially lead to increased acceptance by non-informaticist pathologists.

Laboratory information systems (LISs) supply mission-critical capabilities for the vast array of information-processing needs of modern laboratories. LIS architectures include mainframe, client-server, and thin client configurations. The LIS database software manages a laboratory's data. LIS dictionaries are database tables that a laboratory uses to tailor an LIS to the unique needs of that laboratory. Anatomic pathology LIS (APLIS) functions play key roles throughout the pathology workflow, and laboratories rely on LIS management reports to monitor operations. This article describes the structure and functions of APLISs, with emphasis on their roles in laboratory operations and their relevance to pathologists., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Molecular diagnostic testing presents new challenges to information management that are yet to be sufficiently addressed by currently available information systems for the molecular laboratory. These challenges relate to unique aspects of molecular genetic testing: molecular test ordering, informed consent issues, diverse specimen types that encompass the full breadth of specimens handled by traditional anatomic and clinical pathology information systems, data structures and data elements specific to molecular testing, varied testing workflows and protocols, diverse instrument outputs, unique needs and requirements of molecular test reporting, and nuances related to the dissemination of molecular pathology test reports. By satisfactorily addressing these needs in molecular test data management, a laboratory information system designed for the unique needs of molecular diagnostics presents a compelling reason to migrate away from the current paper and spreadsheet information management that many molecular laboratories currently use. This paper reviews the issues and challenges of information management in the molecular diagnostics laboratory.

Laboratory information systems (LISs) supply mission-critical capabilities for the vast array of information-processing needs of modern laboratories. LIS architectures include mainframe, client-server, and thin client configurations. The LIS database software manages a laboratory's data. LIS dictionaries are database tables that a laboratory uses to tailor an LIS to the unique needs of that laboratory. Anatomic pathology LIS (APLIS) functions play key roles throughout the pathology workflow, and laboratories rely on LIS management reports to monitor operations. This article describes the structure and functions of APLISs, with emphasis on their roles in laboratory operations and their relevance to pathologists., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

With growth spurred by recent federal efforts, electronic health records (EHRs) are transforming the practice of medicine and have important implications for pathologists, their laboratories, and the patients they serve. Beyond new EHR-related regulatory requirements, EHRs fundamentally alter the way clinicians interact with laboratory information, including test order entry and result reviewing. This article is the first in a series of 5 related articles whose goal is to provide a "framework" for empowering pathologists to adapt to, and to succeed in, the era of expanding EHR use. This series aims to describe the environment for EHR uptake, to raise awareness of EHR-related issues that pathologists and laboratories face, and to explore new professional roles for pathologists as stewards of patients' laboratory information in EHRs.

In the era of the electronic health record, the success of laboratories and pathologists will depend on effective presentation and management of laboratory information, including test orders and results, and effective exchange of data between the laboratory information system and the electronic health record. In this third paper of a series that explores empowerment of pathology in the era of the electronic health record, we review key elements of managing laboratory information within the electronic health record and examine functional issues pertinent to pathologists and laboratories in the exchange of laboratory information between electronic health records and both anatomic and clinical pathology laboratory information systems. Issues with electronic order-entry and results-reporting interfaces are described, and considerations for setting up these interfaces are detailed in tables. The role of the laboratory medical director as mandated by the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 and the impacts of discordance between laboratory results and their display in the electronic health record are also discussed.

Just as electronic health records are transforming the practice of medicine and health care information management, practicing in the era of the electronic health record offers opportunities, if not imperatives, for pathologists to take on new and "transformative" professional and leadership roles for the organizations they serve. Experience indicates that clinicians will perceive pathologists and laboratories as responsible for all aspects of laboratory testing and information management, including order entry and results reporting, even though such functions may fall beyond the control of the laboratory. As described and expanded upon in the previous 4 articles of this series, the use of electronic health records dictates changes in how clinicians interact with laboratory information. In this environment, pathologists are uniquely positioned to act as the stewards for laboratory information in electronic health records and throughout health care organizations.

The Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 include strict regulations for reporting content, and it falls on the named director to ensure that this content is available to the caregiver. With the electronic health record serving as the conduit to the end user of the laboratory data, the laboratory generally, and the director specifically, must verify accurate transmission of these content components. An understanding of regulatory and accreditation requirements is essential both to allow the proper discharge of these mandated responsibilities and to enforce the role and authority that the pathologist must have to ensure that these requirements are satisfied by the reporting system. The regulatory requirements will be discussed in the context of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 standards; however, interpretation and expansion on these regulations exist both in Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 inspection guidelines from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and in accreditation program requirements. This regulatory expectation both places the laboratory director in a position of risk and provides leverage to ensure meaningful and accurate communication of laboratory information.

The increasing availability of laboratory information management modules within enterprise electronic health record solutions has resulted in some institutional administrators deciding which laboratory information system will be used to manage workflow within the laboratory, often with minimal input from the pathologists. This article aims to educate pathologists on many of the issues and implications this change may have on laboratory operations, positioning them to better evaluate and represent the needs of the laboratory during this decision-making process. The experiences of the authors, many of their colleagues, and published observations relevant to this debate are summarized. There are multiple dimensions of the interdependency between the pathology laboratory and its information system that must be factored into the decision. Functionality is important, but management authority and gap-ownership are also significant elements to consider. Thus, the pathologist must maintain an active role in the decision-making process to ensure the success of the laboratory.

Background: Pathologists and informaticians are becoming increasingly interested in electronic clinical decision support for pathology, laboratory medicine and clinical diagnosis. Improved decision support may optimize laboratory test selection, improve test result interpretation and permit the extraction of enhanced diagnostic information from existing laboratory data. Nonetheless, the field of pathology decision support is still developing. To facilitate the exchange of ideas and preliminary studies, we convened a symposium entitled: Pathology data integration and clinical decision support., Methods: The symposium was held at the Massachusetts General Hospital, on May 10, 2013. Participants were selected to represent diverse backgrounds and interests and were from nine different institutions in eight different states., Results: The day included 16 plenary talks and three panel discussions, together covering four broad areas. Summaries of each presentation are included in this manuscript., Conclusions: A number of recurrent themes emerged from the symposium. Among the most pervasive was the dichotomy between diagnostic data and diagnostic information, including the opportunities that laboratories may have to use electronic systems and algorithms to convert the data they generate into more useful information. Differences between human talents and computer abilities were described; well-designed symbioses between humans and computers may ultimately optimize diagnosis. Another key theme related to the unique needs and challenges in providing decision support for genomics and other emerging diagnostic modalities. Finally, many talks relayed how the barriers to bringing decision support toward reality are primarily personnel, political, infrastructural and administrative challenges rather than technological limitations.

Context: There is increasing interest in using whole slide imaging (WSI) for diagnostic purposes (primary and/or consultation). An important consideration is whether WSI can safely replace conventional light microscopy as the method by which pathologists review histologic sections, cytology slides, and/or hematology slides to render diagnoses. Validation of WSI is crucial to ensure that diagnostic performance based on digitized slides is at least equivalent to that of glass slides and light microscopy. Currently, there are no standard guidelines regarding validation of WSI for diagnostic use., Objective: To recommend validation requirements for WSI systems to be used for diagnostic purposes., Design: The College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center convened a nonvendor panel from North America with expertise in digital pathology to develop these validation recommendations. A literature review was performed in which 767 international publications that met search term requirements were identified. Studies outside the scope of this effort and those related solely to technical elements, education, and image analysis were excluded. A total of 27 publications were graded and underwent data extraction for evidence evaluation. Recommendations were derived from the strength of evidence determined from 23 of these published studies, open comment feedback, and expert panel consensus., Results: Twelve guideline statements were established to help pathology laboratories validate their own WSI systems intended for clinical use. Validation of the entire WSI system, involving pathologists trained to use the system, should be performed in a manner that emulates the laboratory's actual clinical environment. It is recommended that such a validation study include at least 60 routine cases per application, comparing intraobserver diagnostic concordance between digitized and glass slides viewed at least 2 weeks apart. It is important that the validation process confirm that all material present on a glass slide to be scanned is included in the digital image., Conclusions: Validation should demonstrate that the WSI system under review produces acceptable digital slides for diagnostic interpretation. The intention of validating WSI systems is to permit the clinical use of this technology in a manner that does not compromise patient care.

Background: Clinical algorithms for the workup of celiac disease often recommend the use of serologic assays for initial screening, followed by duodenal biopsy for histologic confirmation. However, the majority of duodenal biopsies submitted to pathology for "rule out celiac" are negative. The objective of this study was to determine the underlying causes for this low diagnostic yield., Methods: We performed a retrospective review of pathology reports from 1432 consecutive duodenal biopsies submitted for pathologic assessment to "rule out celiac" and correlated biopsy results with results for concurrent serologic testing for celiac autoantibodies., Results: The majority of patients had no record of serologic testing prior to biopsy, and evidence of positive serology results was found in only 5% of patients. Most duodenal biopsies were submitted as part of a multi-site GI sampling strategy that included biopsies from other locations. In this context, serologic results correlated with the likelihood of significant duodenal and non-duodenal findings, and were also helpful in evaluating patients with indeterminate duodenal histology., Conclusions: The presence of a positive screening test for celiac autoantibodies does not appear to be a major driver in the decision to submit duodenal biopsies for evaluation of celiac disease, which accounts for the low incidence of findings in these samples. In patients where celiac serology testing was performed, the results were a good predictor of the likelihood of findings on biopsy.

Context: High-resolution scanning technology provides an opportunity for pathologists to make diagnoses directly from whole slide images (WSIs), but few studies have attempted to validate the diagnoses so obtained., Objective: To compare WSI versus microscope slide diagnoses of previously interpreted cases after a 1-year delayed re-review ("wash-out") period., Design: An a priori power study estimated that 450 cases might be needed to demonstrate noninferiority, based on a null hypothesis: "The true difference in major discrepancies between WSI and microscope slide review is greater than 4%." Slides of consecutive cases interpreted by 2 pathologists 1 year prior were retrieved from files, and alternate cases were scanned at original magnification of ×20. Each pathologist reviewed his or her cases using either a microscope or imaging application. Independent pathologists identified and classified discrepancies; an independent statistician calculated major and minor discrepancy rates for both WSI and microscope slide review of the previously interpreted cases., Results: The 607 cases reviewed reflected the subspecialty interests of the 2 pathologists. Study limitations include the lack of cytopathology, hematopathology, or lymphoid cases; the case mix was not enriched with difficult cases; and both pathologists had interpreted several hundred WSI cases before the study to minimize the learning curve. The major and minor discrepancy rates for WSI were 1.65% and 2.31%, whereas rates for microscope slide reviews were 0.99% and 4.93%., Conclusions: Based on our assumptions and study design, diagnostic review by WSI was not inferior to microscope slide review (P < .001).

Distinguishing Barrett esophagus with high-grade dysplasia (BE-HGD) from intramucosal and submucosal adenocarcinomas on biopsies is challenging, yet important, in the choice of therapy. The current study evaluates preresection biopsies from patients who underwent esophagectomy for at least BE-HGD, to compare the recently published histologic categories by the University of Michigan (UM) and Cleveland Clinic (CC), correlate preresection and final resection diagnosis, and identify histologic features in biopsies that might be predictive of adenocarcinoma on esophagectomy. A total of 112 cases with a consensus biopsy diagnosis (agreement by ≥4 of 7 gastrointestinal pathologists) were statistically analyzed to identify histologic features that predicted adenocarcinoma on resection. Applying the UM criteria to the biopsy series showed excellent agreement with the CC system (κ=0.86) and significant correlation between preoperative and esophagectomy diagnoses (P<0.001). The likelihood of finding carcinoma on resection was significantly higher with the category of HGD with marked glandular distortion cannot exclude intramucosal adenocarcinoma [CC; odd ratio (OR), 2.8; P=0.046] or HGD suspicious for adenocarcinoma (UM; OR, 4.3; P=0.008), compared to HGD alone. The presence of "never-ending" glands (OR, 3.7; P=0.008), sheet-like growth (P<0.001), angulated glands (OR, 8.5; P<0.001), ≥3 dilated glands with intraluminal debris (OR, 2.6; P=0.05), and >1 focus of single-cell infiltration into the lamina propria (OR, 8.9; P<0.001) increased the odds of finding carcinoma on resection. The latter 2 variables remained independent predictors of adenocarcinoma in multivariable analysis. In conclusion, the CC and UM systems show excellent agreement and define histologic categories that can improve prediction of adenocarcinoma on resection.

Background: Last year, our pathology informatics fellowship added informatics-based interactive case studies to its existing educational platform of operational and research rotations, clinical conferences, a common core curriculum with an accompanying didactic course, and national meetings., Methods: The structure of the informatics case studies was based on the traditional business school case study format. Three different formats were used, varying in length from short, 15-minute scenarios to more formal multiple hour-long case studies. Case studies were presented over the course of three retreats (Fall 2011, Winter 2012, and Spring 2012) and involved both local and visiting faculty and fellows., Results: Both faculty and fellows found the case studies and the retreats educational, valuable, and enjoyable. From this positive feedback, we plan to incorporate the retreats in future academic years as an educational component of our fellowship program., Conclusions: Interactive case studies appear to be valuable in teaching several aspects of pathology informatics that are difficult to teach in more traditional venues (rotations and didactic class sessions). Case studies have become an important component of our fellowship's educational platform.

Electronic health records (EHRs) have emerged as a major topic in health care and are central to the federal government's strategy for transforming healthcare delivery in the United States. Recent federal actions that aim to promote the use of EHRs promise to have significant implications for laboratories and for pathology practices. Under the HITECH (Health Information Technology Economic and Clinical Health) Act, an EHR incentive program has been established through which individual physicians and hospitals can qualify to receive incentive payments if they achieve "meaningful use" of "certified" EHR technology. The rule also establishes payment penalties in future years for eligible providers who have not met the requirements for meaningful use of EHRs. Meaningful use must be achieved using EHR technology that has been certified in accordance with functional and technical criteria that are set forth a regulation that parallels the meaningful use criteria in the incentive program. These actions and regulations are important to laboratories and pathologists for a number of reasons. Several of the criteria and requirements in the meaningful use rules and EHR certification criteria relate directly or indirectly to laboratory testing and laboratory information management, and future stage requirements are expected to impact the laboratory as well. Furthermore, as EHR uptake expands, there will be greater expectations for electronic interchange of laboratory information and laboratory information system (LIS)-EHR interfaces. Laboratories will need to be aware of the technical, operational, and business challenges that they may face as expectations for LIS-EHR increase. This paper reviews the important recent federal efforts aimed at accelerating EHR use, including the incentive program for EHR meaningful use, provider eligibility, and EHR certification criteria, from a perspective of their relevance for laboratories and pathology practices.

The vast advancements in telecommunications and converting medical information to a digital format have increased the number of applications within telemedicine. Telepathology, in simplest terms, is the practice of formally rendering a pathologic diagnosis based upon examination of an image rather than of a glass slide through traditional microscopy. The use of telepathology for clinical patient care has so far been limited to relatively few large academic institutions. Although a number of challenges remain, there is increasing demand for the use of information technology in pathology as a whole owing to the expansion of health care networks and the opportunity to enhance the quality of service delivered to patients. The software used to acquire, display, and manage digital images for clinical patient care may be subject to national and federal regulations just as is any other electronic information system. Despite the barriers, telepathology systems possess the capability to help manage pathology cases on a global scale, improve laboratory workload distribution, increase standardization of practice and enable new classes of ancillary studies to facilitate diagnosis and education even in the most remote parts of the earth.

Objective: Grading Barrett's dysplasia at the lower end of the metaplasia-dysplasia spectrum (negative, indefinite, and low-grade dysplasia) suffers from poor interobserver agreement, even among gastrointestinal pathologists. Data evaluating interobserver agreement in Barrett's mucosal biopsies with changes at the upper end of the dysplasia spectrum (high-grade dysplasia, intramucosal, and submucosal adenocarcinoma) have not been published. The accurate categorization of pretreatment biopsies drives therapeutic decision making, but if the diagnostic distinction between cancer and high-grade dysplasia in Barrett's biopsies is inconsistent, then the use of these diagnoses to make management decisions is suspect. To this end, our aim was to assess interobserver reproducibility among a group of gastrointestinal pathologists in the interpretation of preresection biopsies., Methods: All study pathologists agreed upon the histologic criteria distinguishing four diagnostic categories, including high-grade dysplasia; high-grade dysplasia with marked distortion of glandular architecture, cannot exclude intramucosal adenocarcinoma; intramucosal adenocarcinoma; and submucosally invasive adenocarcinoma. The histologic criteria were used to independently review preresection biopsies from 163 consecutive Barrett's esophagus patients with at least high-grade dysplasia who ultimately underwent esophagectomy. Reviewers recorded the specific histologic criteria used to categorize each case and Kappa statistics were calculated to assess interobserver agreement., Results: Using kappa statistics, the overall agreement was only fair (kappa= 0.30). Agreement for high-grade dysplasia was moderate (kappa= 0.47), while agreement for high-grade dysplasia with marked architectural distortion, cannot exclude intramucosal adenocarcinoma and intramucosal adenocarcinoma were only fair (kappa= 0.21 and 0.30, respectively) and agreement for submucosal adenocarcinoma was poor (kappa= 0.14)., Conclusions: The overall poor interobserver reproducibility among gastrointestinal pathologists who see a high volume of Barrett's cases calls into question treatment regimens based on the assumption that high-grade dysplasia, intramucosal adenocarcinoma, and submucosal adenocarcinoma can reliably be distinguished in biopsy specimens.

Laboratory informatics is the application of computers and information systems to information management in the pathology laboratory. Effective information management is crucial to the success of pathologists and laboratorians. Informatics has become one of the key pillars of pathology, and the requirement for skilled informaticists in the laboratory has quickly grown. This article provides a wide-ranging review of pertinent aspects of laboratory informatics, and deals with important technical and management processes. Topics covered include personal computing, networks, databases, fundamentals and advanced functions of the laboratory information system, interfaces and standards, digital imaging, coding, hospital information systems and electronic medical records.

Context: To be successful in tomorrow's health care environment, to make the most appropriate decisions for their laboratories, to optimize training and continuing medical education opportunities, and to advance pathology as a professional specialty, pathologists must possess basic informatics knowledge and proficiency. Traditional areas of anatomic and clinical pathology residency training employ learning objectives, knowledge expectations, and skill sets, but such items have not been as well developed or widely implemented for pathology informatics training., Objective: We present a proposal that defines a standard and specific set of learning (knowledge) objectives and skill set (proficiency) expectations for resident training in pathology informatics., Design: The proposal includes a comprehensive and detailed set of knowledge applications and proficiencies that will assist residency programs in developing basic pathology informatics training for residents. The content of the proposal is based on and compiled from existing successful pathology informatics training programs. Learning objectives include those related to general and enterprise computing as well as objectives related specifically to pathology informatics. Skill set expectations include the ability to use software that facilitates and adds value to the work of pathologists, including the use of a laboratory information system and of productivity software and other tools. Other topics include guidelines for evaluating residents' informatics competency, suggestions regarding curriculum structure and implementation, and recommendations for residents' computing infrastructure., Conclusion: This proposal provides a foundation for building effective and standard curricula for residency training in pathology informatics. These curricula will be able to meet increasing expectations and needs for pathologists to contribute to clinical information management.

Laboratory analyses may generate multiple data types that may reside in disparate systems, and combining data into a report often requires laborious, error-prone methods. Kidney stone analysis, which includes biochemical composition analysis and gross feature documentation, is an example of such a situation. We developed the kidney stone reporting system (KISS) that integrates patient and specimen information from the laboratory information system, digital images of stones, and analytic instrument data into a concise report for the ordering clinicians. The database management environment facilitates archival and retrieval capabilities. Implementation of the system has reduced the number of manual steps necessary to produce a report and has saved approximately 30 technologist hours per week. Transcription errors have been virtually eliminated. The KISS represents an innovative use of standard tools to integrate text, image, and graphic data from disparate systems into an integrated laboratory report, without the need for expensive interfaces.

Information management is crucial in pathology, and previous reports have stressed the needfor improved informatics training in pathology residency programs. We surveyed 150 US programs to assess informatics training with respect to types of training, proficiency expectations, and computing infrastructure. Seventy-two programs (48.0%) responded. Of the respondents, 67 (93%) reported offering informatics training; of these, 52 (78%) required it. Most programs integrated informatics into another rotation, usually management. In 37 programs (55%), the amount of informatics training has increased during the last 3 to 5 years. The most common instructional methods were hands-on training and self-study; 61 programs (91%) used multiple methods. In all but 2 programs, computers were designated for residents; 9 programs offered individual computers to residents. All programs provided productivity software. These data suggest progress in informatics training but that considerable room for improvement exists. Our data also document for the first time detailed computing resources available to residents.

Voice recognition (VR) technology in computer systems converts speech directly into electronic text. In pathology, VR holds promise to improve efficiency and to reduce transcription delays and costs. We investigated the utility and cost effectiveness of targeted VR deployment in surgical pathology. A VR system was deployed for entry of gross descriptions of biopsies and of low to moderate complexity specimens and for entry of final reports for specimens not requiring microscopic analysis. Templates for VR were developed for all reports. Free-text speech entry was used to enter information not covered by templates. Voice converted to text by VR crossed over an interface into the anatomic pathology laboratory information system. Tallies were kept of whether individual specimens were entered by VR or by conventional dictation. A computer program was written to analyze the number of lines of text entered through VR. Cost savings were calculated based on per-line transcription costs from an outside agency. Over 18 months, gross descriptions for an average of 5617 specimens per month were entered via VR, corresponding to 70% of all gross specimens processed by the laboratory. A mean of 106 gross-only final reports per month was entered through VR. VR facilitated same-day processing of specimens received after the previous day processing cutoff time (average 35 specimens per day). VR generated an average of 23,864 lines of text per month, translating to $2625 savings per month. Estimated payback period for VRT as implemented is 1.9 years. The use of VR for gross descriptions of biopsies and low to moderate complexity specimens and for gross-only final reports in surgical pathology facilitates data entry, reduces transcription costs, and contributes to improved turnaround time. Development of templates is important to successful implementation of VR in surgical pathology.