Is documented evidence of daily review 2.2.11 of the technical quality of histological preparations by the pathologist? INTRA-OPERATIVE CONSULTATION 2.3 (RAPID DIAGNOSIS) Are frozen sections, touch and scrape 2.3.1 preparations adequate for intra-operative diagnosis? Are the results of intra-operative surgical 2.3.2 consultations signed by the pathologist who made the diagnosis? If verbal reports are given, does the 2.3.3 pathologist speak directly to the surgeon? Are the patient’s identification checked and 2.3.4 confirmed before delivery of any verbal report? Are all intra-operative consultation reports 2.3.5 made a part of the final surgical pathology report? Is all frozen section, touch and scrape preparation slides permanently stained, 2.3.6 mounted, properly labelled and retained with the rest of the slides from the case? Is the residual frozen tissue routinely processed into paraffin, and a histological 2.3.7 section prepared and examined for comparison with the frozen section interpretation? Is there a documented procedure for the routine decontamination of the cryostat at 2.3.8 defined intervals, and decontamination records are evident? REPORTS 2.4 Is there a policy regarding the 2.4.1 communication and documentation of significant surgical pathology findings? Do surgical pathology reports include gross descriptions that contain type, number, dimensions and/or weight of the specimens, 2.4.2 measurements and extent of gross lesions and other information essential to the diagnosis? Do gross descriptions include a summary 2.4.3 noting block and slide designations for special sections? Do gross descriptions and microscopic 2.4.4 findings support the pathologic diagnosis?
2.2.11 Is documented evidence of daily review of the technical quality of histological preparations by the pathologist? 2.3 INTRA-OPERATIVE CONSULTATION (RAPID DIAGNOSIS) 2.3.1 Are frozen sections, touch and scrape preparations adequate for intra-operative diagnosis? 2.3.2 Are the results of intra-operative surgical consultations signed by the pathologist who made the diagnosis? 2.3.3 If verbal reports are given, does the pathologist speak directly to the surgeon? 2.3.4 Are the patient’s identification checked and confirmed before delivery of any verbal report? 2.3.5 Are all intra-operative consultation reports made a part of the final surgical pathology report? 2.3.6 Is all frozen section, touch and scrape preparation slides permanently stained, mounted, properly labelled and retained with the rest of the slides from the case? 2.3.7 Is the residual frozen tissue routinely processed into paraffin, and a histological section prepared and examined for comparison with the frozen section interpretation? 2.3.8 Is there a documented procedure for the routine decontamination of the cryostat at defined intervals, and decontamination records are evident? 2.4 REPORTS 2.4.1 Is there a policy regarding the communication and documentation of significant surgical pathology findings? 2.4.2 Do surgical pathology reports include gross descriptions that contain type, number, dimensions and/or weight of the specimens, measurements and extent of gross lesions and other information essential to the diagnosis? 2.4.3 Do gross descriptions include a summary noting block and slide designations for special sections? 2.4.4 Do gross descriptions and microscopic findings support the pathologic diagnosis?
CRA-F-05-15189-S-01-Anatomic%20Pathology.docx