Dermatology 2013

URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23786543

Author Address: Department of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA. comfere.nneka@mayo.edu

 

 

Reference Type:  Journal Article

Record Number: 4309Author: Comfere, N. I., Sokumbi, O., Montori, V. M., LeBlanc, A., Prokop, L. J., Murad, M. H. and Tilburt, J. C.

Year: 2014

Title: Provider-to-provider communication in dermatology and implications of missing clinical information in skin biopsy requisition forms: a systematic review

Journal: Int J Dermatol

Volume: 53

Issue: 5

Pages: 549-57

Date: May

Short Title: Provider-to-provider communication in dermatology and implications of missing clinical information in skin biopsy requisition forms: a systematic review

Alternate Journal: International journal of dermatology

ISSN: 1365-4632 (Electronic)

0011-9059 (Linking)

DOI: 10.1111/ijd.12330

Accession Number: 24116717

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Various components of the skin biopsy requisition form (SBRF) may contribute to accurate dermatopathologic interpretation. METHODS: A search of electronic databases, including those of Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus, was conducted from inception to October 2011. Two authors independently screened all articles for eligibility. Inclusion criteria required material to represent original studies on skin biopsy and pathology requisition forms. Data abstracted from each article that met the inclusion criteria included details of the study characteristics, including the study location, type of pathology practice, specimen type, type of dermatoses, medical specialty of the requesting provider, suggested clinical components, and format of the SBRF. RESULTS: Of 32 titles and abstracts reviewed, seven articles were included. From these, we determined that dermatologists, general practitioners and surgeons completed SBRFs. Commonly included components were patient demographics and requesting clinician characteristics. Clinical information and differential diagnosis were provided in 4% (two of 48 surgeons) to 36% (18 of 50 dermatologists) of requisitions. Most SBRFs did not include information on specimen type, clinical morphology, photographs or clinical history. CONCLUSIONS: The limited medical literature demonstrates variation in the content of SBRFs across clinicians and practices, and suggests an important target for improvement in the quality of communication and dermatologic care by requesting clinicians and pathologists.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295