View PPT slides - Digital Pathology Association
Download
Report
Transcript View PPT slides - Digital Pathology Association
Development of CAP Standards for Digital
Pathology That Would be Important for CAP
Accreditation of Pathology Labs as We
Transition Into a Digital Era
Keith J. Kaplan, MD
Carolinas Pathology Group
What is CAP Accreditation?
CAP Laboratory Accreditation Program (LAP) is an internationally recognized
program and the only one of its kind that utilizes teams of practicing
laboratory professionals and inspectors
Designed to go well beyond regulatory compliance, the program helps
laboratories achieve the highest standards of excellence to positively impact
patient care.
Deemed status from CMS and recognized by JCAHO
Pathology Visions 2010
What is CAP Accreditation?
The goal of the CAP LAP is to improve patient safety by advancing the
quality of pathology and laboratory services through education, standard
setting and ensuring laboratories meet or exceed regulatory requirements
CAP Website Sept 2010
Pathology Visions 2010
What is CAP Accreditation?
Best Practices
Where and how does this apply to digital pathology?
How will standards enable digital pathology adoption?
Pathology Visions 2010
Accreditation Checklists
Blueprint for up-to-date quality practices for laboratories
Incorporate the development and support of pathologists and continually
evolve to reflect current technology
Provide a solid foundation, specify detailed requirements and serve as a tool
used by inspectors to evaluate the laboratory
Act as a guideline for development of policies, procedures and processes to
help ensure accurate, reliable laboratory test results
Pathology Visions 2010
Checklist examples
GEN.41770 Glassware Cleaning
ANP.11500 Specimen Identity
Appropriate documented procedures for handling and cleaning glassware
Identity of every specimen is maintained at all times during processing and
examination
ANP.24300 CJD Special Handling
Documented procedures for special handing from cases in which CJD is suspected
Pathology Visions 2010
Pathology Visions 2010
Pathology Visions 2010
Pathology Visions 2010
CAP Informatics Committee circa March 2008
Bruce A. Beckwith, MD (Chair)
Ronald W. McLawhon, MD, PhD
Walter H. Henricks, MD (Vice-chair)
Liron Pantanowitz, MD
David L. Booker, MD
John Sinard, MD, PhD
James H. Brassel, MD
Ronald S. Weinstein, MD
Victor B. Brodsky, MD
Jeffrey Korman (CAP Staff)
William J. Castellani, MD
Bryce Gilmore (CAP Staff)
Keith J. Kaplan, MD
Pathology Visions 2010
Pathology Visions 2010
Virtual
microscopy
PACS signout
Virtual IHC
Consultation
Imaging &
Archiving
Diagnosis
Consultation
Reporting
Targeted
Digital Pathology therapies
Links to
images
Image
Digital Data Set/Whole slide image
Digital
based
Content
rich
data
sets
archive
searches
Undergraduate TMA
GME/CME
Education
Pathology Visions 2010
Telepathology
Comparative
analysis
Research
Image analysis
& CAD
What other standards are needed?
Clinical implications
“It’s what you do with the information that matters”
Technical implications
“Create an environment for managing multi-gigabyte images”
Autostainers, coverslippers, LIS, PACS
Pathology Visions 2010
Clinical standards
Workflow driven
Right patient, right image, right time – appropriate links to information
Morphometric analysis (image analysis)
Approved (validated) platforms
# of fields/regions
Quality assurance and quality control
Gross photograph images recorded and integrated with WSI/viewing
Specimen containers for QC
Pathology Visions 2010
Factors for consideration
Diagnostic accuracy
Quality of image handling (orientation, focusing)
Workflow
Influence of turn around time/time to diagnosis (image transfer)
Influence of system stability
Influence of user support (training, support, helpdesk)
Pathology Visions 2010
Factors for consideration
Reliability
System(s) reliability (total break down)
Access control and data security (access without loss or misuse)
Medicolegal factors
Pathology Visions 2010
Technical standards
DICOM standard facilitates interoperability between scanners, image
storage systems and viewers
Image compression that would not compromise pathologists’ ability to
diagnose
Image fidelity from scanner to monitor
Storage standards – HIPAA, redundancy, back up
Storage standards – length of storage
Pathology Visions 2010
Factors for consideration
Quality of equipment (PCs, monitors, scanners)
Quality of monitor images (resolution, color, contrast)
Pathology Visions 2010
Regulatory standards
FDA panel Oct 2009
Medicolegal implication
Pathology Visions 2010
Medicolegal standards
Market forces are changing and insurers are responding to the market
Assistance in working with insurers to meet standards of care
Risk of using technology vs. Not using technology
Pathology Visions 2010
Pathology Visions 2010
Pathology Visions 2010
Pathology Visions 2010