2008 Summer Meeting - Leeds - The Pathological Society of Great ...

P147Patient Understanding of Hospital Pathology Services: AQuestionnaire Based AuditJM Hutchinson 1 ,NP West 21 Department of Hepatology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust, Leeds, UK2 Department of Histopathology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust, Leeds,UKPathologists traditionally carry out much their work behind closed doors andout of the public eye. We aimed to determine the current level of patientunderstanding of hospital pathology services.Forty semi-qualitative questionnaires were completed by patients admittedto a hepatology unit between January and March 2008. The study groupconsisted of 23 males and 17 females with a mean age of 46.6 years (range 16-71 years). 22 patients were admitted for post-transplantation issues, 12 for pretransplantationliver biopsy and 6 for transplantation. 31 patients had undergoneat least one previous tissue biopsy.80% of respondents had previously heard of a pathologist but only 38%recognised that they analysed their biopsy or explant. 60% thought pathologistswere somehow involved in the diagnosis of liver disorders but only 50%thought they could influence treatment. An additional 15% believed thatpathologists were only involved in the examination of dead bodies. 13%recognised that disciplines such as haematology and microbiology also fellunder ‘pathology services’. When asked to rate the importance in their care,pathologists fared the worst behind surgeons, physicians and radiologists. 95%had no concerns about tissue retention and 78% were happy for their tissue tobe used for research purposes.This study highlights the current lack of patient understanding of hospitalpathology services, even in those who have undergone previous tissue biopsies.We believe this re-enforces the need for education and interaction throughevents such as the forthcoming Royal College of Pathologists ‘PathologyWeek’.P149An Audit of Colorectal Cancer Specimens – What is the BestMeasure for the Adequate Numbers of Lymph NodesExamined?RThomas 1 , A Jackson 11 Dewsbury & District HospitalAim:To perform an audit on colorectal cancer specimens for the 3 main standards asrecommended in the Royal College of Pathologists’ Minimum Dataset, 2ndedition, September 2007.Methods:The reports of 120 consecutive colorectal specimens between December 2006 -August 2007 were analysed.Results:• frequency of serosal involvement was 26.9% for colonic tumours and 25% forrectal tumours.• frequency of extramural venous invasion was 26.7%.• mean number of lymph nodes examined was 12.75.All of these results are within the range recommended by the Royal College.Observations:In regards to the lymph node yield, is the calculation of the mean the best valuefor assessing adequacy?Our results showed the range of lymph nodes examined was 0 – 40. the data ispositively skewed, with 58.3% of the cases having lymph node numbers lessthan the mean.The median may be a better central tendency measurement as it is used forasymmetrically distributed data. In our audit the median was 11.5, the value atwhich 50% of the cases have lower values.It may be prudent to calculate the median as well as (or instead of) the mean infuture audits, to remove the false assurance that achieving a mean number oflymph nodes above 12 is adequate, when more than half the cases may fallbelow this value.P148Scottish Histopathology Specialty Training Recruitment 2008:Evaluation of ProcessPW Johnston 1-2 , FH French 21 NHS Grampian, 2 NHS Education for Scotland, North of Scotland DeaneryThe Scottish Histopathology recruitment process has evolved over three years,offering 8 ST1 posts in 2008. The person specification and application formwere developed from templates. The application required factual informationand evidence of reflective learning with eligibility criteria and 9 scoring fields.The forms were scored by 8 paired, trained selectors over one day. Theinterview was structured in advance, mixing behavioural and scenario questionsthat assessed understanding of a histopathology report, clinical prioritisation,dealing with an error, interpreting a picture, preparing a presentation andcommitment to the specialty. Communication, language skills and submittedportfolios were also assessed. Shortlister scores were correlated (Pearson).Reliability of the shortlisting and interview tools was tested (Cronbach’s). Ananonymous exit questionnaire was administered to interviewed candidates.Focus groups provided insight to assessors’ views of shortlisting and interview.The 41 from 88 applicants who scored well at shortlisting were invited tointerview. Interview candidates (n = 40) were assessed by two of four panels oftwo selectors providing 20 “appointable” individuals. Shortlisters’ scorescorrelated well (0.964, p