Do Pathologist mainly use Path software. e.g. CoPath?

[TJMAXX]

---

Members don't see this ad.

no need to use or seldem use the softwares that internist or other specialities use daily to admit ,treat, order tests, consultation...discharge, etc.. pts??? corrcet?

 

[HbyHA]

are you kidding me? i think we use more different kinds of software than any other resident in the hospital. of course, it could be due to the fact that our health system has literally 15 different computer systems (i'm not kidding OR exaggerating). we use one system for outpatients, one for inpatients (viewing clinical sign-out sheets), one for radiology and older records, one to view radiology... what am i forgetting? oh yeah, even an older version of our path software because if we switch our blood bank over to our new path software, WE'LL KILL SOMEONE (still not kidding or exaggerating)

 

[TJMAXX]

HbyHA, thank you for your response, you confirmed my thought that pathologist use totally different softwares as other clinicans...

 

[HbyHA]

HbyHA, thank you for your response, you confirmed my thought that pathologist use totally different softwares as other clinicans...

i guess my response was unclear... in addition to our LIS, we ALSO use THE SAME software as the clinicians, but we don't do actual charting or note writing that the clinicians use. we have more of a read-only access, but on any given day we're looking in both inpatient and outpatient software systems

 

[TJMAXX]

i guess my response was unclear... in addition to our LIS, we ALSO use THE SAME software as the clinicians, but we don't do actual charting or note writing that the clinicians use. we have more of a read-only access, but on any given day we're looking in both inpatient and outpatient software systems

thank you! I was thinking about the "read only" thing, you proved that.

 

[Pathjob]

i guess my response was unclear... in addition to our LIS, we ALSO use THE SAME software as the clinicians, but we don't do actual charting or note writing that the clinicians use. we have more of a read-only access, but on any given day we're looking in both inpatient and outpatient software systems

Everything depends on the software the hospital uses. The wise laboratory director will ensure that any software chosen will be completely in sync with the hospital. I have never used Co-Path in seventeen years. Some have said that clinicians want images; in real life most, apart from some GI doctors, do not because it makes them partly liable for the interpretation of the image. Also, it takes a lot of time for the pathologist to photograph every case. A urologist told me the only time the images are really useful is for vas deferens segments and fallopian tubes; that way the patients are convinced a complete job was done.

 

[BierstiefelAndy]

Everything depends on the software the hospital uses. The wise laboratory director will ensure that any software chosen will be completely in sync with the hospital. I have never used Co-Path in seventeen years. Some have said that clinicians want images; in real life most, apart from some GI doctors, do not because it makes them partly liable for the interpretation of the image. Also, it takes a lot of time for the pathologist to photograph every case. A urologist told me the only time the images are really useful is for vas deferens segments and fallopian tubes; that way the patients are convinced a complete job was done.

Also, having photomicrographs available for clinicians to see is a great setup for them to right click, press "save as", and then use the file for publication without crediting the pathologist. This is wrong. Too many times, have I received emails asking for pictures and when I ask how the pathologist will be credited in the publlication, the email exchange ceases.

 

[Pathjob]

Also, having photomicrographs available for clinicians to see is a great setup for them to right click, press "save as", and then use the file for publication without crediting the pathologist. This is wrong. Too many times, have I received emails asking for pictures and when I ask how the pathologist will be credited in the publlication, the email exchange ceases.

That's firghtening. What if you happen to photograph the wrong thing?

 

[BierstiefelAndy]

That's firghtening. What if you happen to photograph the wrong thing?

You mean if I take a photograph of a frozen section of a dingleberry?

 

[Pathjob]

You mean if I take a photograph of a frozen section of a dingleberry?

No, what if you had to phhoto, you know, thirty-forty cases a day. First of all, you would very likely not hit the prime spot because you are just interested in documentation. Second, the chances that you might photograph the wrong part of the slide are 100%; it would take me a minimum of ten minutes to get the ideal location, ensure adequacy of color, and the appropriate magnification.

Some places actually have non-doctors taking the photos anyways. It doesn't matter because the clinicians can't actually understand the slides anyways, but if it goes into a journal you really get trashed for nothing.

 

[BierstiefelAndy]

It doesn't matter because the clinicians can't actually understand the slides anyways, but if it goes into a journal you really get trashed for nothing.

It behooves the clinician to get pathologist input especially if he/she does not understand the contents of the slides he/she stole. Then the appropriate acknowledgment of the pathologist contribution can be addressed by the authors.

Now, if there is no pathologist as a co-author, the pathologists would not get trashed...the fault of inaccurate representation of the case via bad photomicrographs solely rests on the authors and not the folks around them. The clinicians would be viewed as irresponsible. The pathologists should be fine.

Therefore, the pathologist, when contacted by clinicians, should not just give information away. Authorship (not acknowledgments) should be addressed early in the interaction. To credit radiologists who provide radiographs but not the pathologists who provide photomicrographs is utterly unacceptable.

 

[Pathjob]

It behooves the clinician to get pathologist input especially if he/she does not understand the contents of the slides he/she stole. Then the appropriate acknowledgment of the pathologist contribution can be addressed by the authors.

Now, if there is no pathologist as a co-author, the pathologists would not get trashed...the fault of inaccurate representation of the case via bad photomicrographs solely rests on the authors and not the folks around them. The clinicians would be viewed as irresponsible. The pathologists should be fine.

Therefore, the pathologist, when contacted by clinicians, should not just give information away. Authorship (not acknowledgments) should be addressed early in the interaction. To credit radiologists who provide radiographs but not the pathologists who provide photomicrographs is utterly unacceptable.

If the authors' get trashed for the photomicrograph, they will come for your head to your chairman. You are right about the credit; I give case reports to our residents because it's so hard to get a job these days and because publications with fewer than 100 patients make no difference to the T&P committee in my case. What none want is for something not intended for public distribution to be made public. It is possible for them to pull up the rest of your photomicrographs of their patients to look for other similar errors. Thanks be to heaven our department decided against this stuff. You need to communicate your experience to others; it shocked me.

 

[BierstiefelAndy]

If the authors' get trashed for the photomicrograph, they will come for your head to your chairman. You are right about the credit; I give case reports to our residents because it's so hard to get a job these days and because publications with fewer than 100 patients make no difference to the T&P committee in my case. What none want is for something not intended for public distribution to be made public. It is possible for them to pull up the rest of your photomicrographs of their patients to look for other similar errors. Thanks be to heaven our department decided against this stuff. You need to communicate your experience to others; it shocked me.

Well thank goodness I haven't worked for a system where photomicrographs are routinely attached to a diagnostic report. And I hope this will stay the same for the reason you point out. I don't need to do extra work which can, in the long run, be used against me. I am aware that some private practice labs do this though.

I've communicated this issue to others (about the credit for photomicrographs to be used for publication, that is). Others are aware of it too because they've been targeted by this kind of shenanigans too. My policy remains the same...if the email requesting photos is rude (i.e., implying that I am simply a photographer for the clinician) and mentions no mechanism by which the pathologist (i.e., me) will be credited in the publication in which my photomicrographs are used, then the email will be promptly deleted. The delete button is your friend.