Intraoperative Communications Between Pathologists and Surgeons: Do We Understand Each Other?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT.—: Clear communication between pathologists and surgeons during intraoperative consultations is critical for optimal patient care. OBJECTIVE.—: To examine the concordance of intraoperative diagnoses recorded in pathology reports to surgeon-dictated operative notes and assess the impact of an intervention on the discrepancy rates. DESIGN.—: Discrepancies between the intended communication by pathologists and the interpretation by surgeons were characterized as minor with no crucial clinical impact, and major with the potential of altering patient management. After analysis, a corrective intervention was implemented with education, information sharing, and a change in protocol, and a comparative analysis was conducted. RESULTS.—: We examined 223 surgical cases with 578 intraoperative consultations. In 23% (51) of the cases, the intraoperative diagnosis was not recorded in the operative reports. We found minor discrepancies in 34% (59) and major discrepancies in 2% (3) of the remaining cases. Deferrals accounted for 24% (14 of 59) of the minor and 33% (1 of 3) of the major discrepancies. Among the discrepant cases, 56% (35 of 62) were multipart cases, including all major discrepancies. Following intervention, no major discrepancies were found in 101 cases with 186 intraoperative interpretations. The cases with no operative documentation reports decreased from 23% to 16% (16 of 101). Minor discrepancies were found in 11% (9 of 85) of the cases, indicating significant improvement (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS.—: Intraoperative diagnoses can be miscommunicated and/or misinterpreted, possibly impacting intraoperative management, particularly in multipart cases and those involving deferrals. This study highlights the importance of auditing intraoperative communications and addressing the findings through a local intervention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".