Provider-to-provider communication in dermatology and implications of missing clinical information in skin biopsy requisition forms: a systematic review
Provider-to-provider communication in dermatology and implications of missing clinical information in skin biopsy requisition forms: a systematic review
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/ijd.12330
复制
发表时间：
2014-05-01
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Tilburt, Jon C.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Comfere, Nneka I.;Sokumbi, Olayemi;Tilburt, Jon C.
背景皮肤活检申请表（SBRF）的各个组成部分可能有助于准确的皮肤病理学解释。方法检索电子数据库，包括奥维德MEDLINE过程中和其他非索引引文、奥维德MEDLINE、奥维德EMBASE、科克伦系统评价数据库、科克伦对照试验中心注册库和Scopus，从开始到2011年10月。两位作者独立筛选了所有文章的合格性。入选标准要求材料代表皮肤活检和病理学申请表上的原始研究。从符合纳入标准的每篇文章中提取的数据包括研究特征的详细信息，包括研究地点、病理学实践类型、标本类型、皮肤病类型、请求提供者的医学专业、建议的临床组成部分和SBRF格式。结果共检索到32篇文章，其中7篇被纳入。从这些，我们确定皮肤科医生，全科医生和外科医生完成SBRF。通常包括的组成部分是患者人口统计学和请求临床医生特征。4%（48名外科医生中的2名）至36%（50名皮肤科医生中的18名）的患者提供了临床信息和鉴别诊断。大多数SBRF不包括关于标本类型、临床形态学、照片或临床病史的信息。结论：有限的医学文献表明SBRF的内容在临床医生和实践中存在差异，并建议通过要求临床医生和病理学家提高沟通和皮肤病护理质量的重要目标。
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.