Recommendations for pathology peer review.

  • Morton D
  • Sellers R
  • Barale-Thomas E
 et al. 
  • 14

    Readers

    Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
  • 31

    Citations

    Citations of this article.

Abstract

Pathology peer review verifies and improves the accuracy and quality of pathology diagnoses and interpretations. Pathology peer review is recommended when important risk assessment or business decisions are based on nonclinical studies. For pathology peer review conducted before study completion, the peer-review pathologist reviews sufficient slides and pathology data to assist the study pathologist in refining pathology diagnoses and interpretations. Materials to be reviewed are selected by the peer-review pathologist. Consultations with additional experts or a formal (documented) pathology working group may be used to resolve discrepancies. The study pathologist is solely responsible for the content of the final pathology data and report, makes changes resulting from peer-review discussions, initiates the audit trail for microscopic observations after all changes resulting from peer-review have been made, and signs the final pathologist's report. The peer-review pathologist creates a signed peer-review memo describing the peer-review process and confirming that the study pathologist's report accurately and appropriately reflects the pathology data. The study pathologist also may sign a statement of consensus. It is not necessary to archive working notes created during the peer-review process.

Get free article suggestions today

Mendeley saves you time finding and organizing research

Sign up here
Already have an account ?Sign in

Find this document

Authors

  • Daniel Morton

  • Rani S. Sellers

  • Erio Barale-Thomas

  • Brad Bolon

  • Catherine George

  • Jerry F. Hardisty

Cite this document

Choose a citation style from the tabs below

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free