- Joined
- Mar 26, 2010
- Messages
- 31
- Reaction score
- 3
When other community pathology practices outsource their consults to another specialty referral lab by sending the paraffin block for initial diagnosis, what precisely are we obligated to return to these clients? Is it not per CLIA or CAP slide retention policy for us to retain in our archives those slides, eg, immunohistochemical stains, that the subspecialty referral lab had set up and performed to render their expert consultative diagnoses? Would the secondary referral lab not be exposed to legal risk by returning, on a routine basis for ALL cases, all slides to the original community pathology client? What if, for example, there is a lawsuit, and slides were returned to the client, and the client lost the slides? This places the referral lab in a precarious position, if all slides are sent back to the community pathology practice and said community practice loses slides, wouldn’t this be a risk in the setting of potential lawsuit? And why would the community practice feel a need to double check diagnoses and document agreements, as they are general community practice sending to the sub specialty referral lab for the first time, primary diagnosis. They aren’t capable of rendering the primary, often complicated lymphoma diagnosis, for example, to begin with, that is why they are sending the samples in the first place. Usually concordance reviews are documented at the originating client lab on an internal basis and if the originating lab had rendered a diagnosis, and the case was then sent out to another referral lab for a second opinion or report, not the other way around. I don’t think it is common practice for the larger national reference labs e.g. NeoGenomics, Quest, Integrated Oncology, Mayo, ARUP, or academic centers, eg NIH, Mass General, for example, to return to the original referral clients slides all of the slides or especially those slides unique to their institution and which they setup and prepared, is it?
Last edited: