BMJ 1994;309:803-805 (24 September)
Letters
Histopathology and medical laboratory scientific officers Pathologists are responsible for diagnosis
EDITOR, - T G Ashworth was correct when he predicted that his views would incur the displeasure of some of his peers.1 In the interest of job satisfaction and economy he advocates that medical laboratory scientific officers should undertake the gross examination of surgical specimens and the microscopical examination of some unspecified tissues. He states that, for 50 years, his laboratory has entrusted the selection of tissue for embedding and microscopy to medical laboratory scientific officers and he knows of no instance in which this practice has led to diagnostic error. Without the aid of external audit what is this statement worth?
Undoubtedly, medical laboratory scientific officers could be trained to describe and dissect many surgical specimens and to select appropriate tissues for histological examination, but they do not have the appropriate background for this. Is it cost effective to train staff for jobs for which they have inadequate background . . . [Full text of this article]

CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati What's this?
Relevant Article
-
The future for histopathology: protectionism or prudence?
- T G Ashworth
BMJ 1994 309: 417.
[Extract]
[Full Text]
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Duthie, F R, Nairn, E R, Milne, A W, McTaggart, V, Topping, D
(2004). The impact of involvement of biomedical scientists in specimen dissection and selection of blocks for histopathology: a study of time benefits and specimen handling quality in Ayrshire and Arran area laboratory. J. Clin. Pathol.
57: 27-32
[Abstract]
[Full text]
-
Ashworth, T G
(1995). Histopathology and medical laboratory scientific officers. BMJ
310: 130-130
[Full text]
-
Fletcher, S.
(1994). Histopathology and medical laboratory scientific officers. BMJ
309: 1513-1513
[Full text]