Gross Dissection Time Values of Pathologists\u27 Assistants Using Standardized Metrics.

OBJECTIVES: A validated and objective method to quantify the gross dissection time of pathologists\u27 assistants (PAs) does not exist. We propose a method to calculate standardized work units (dissection time values [DTVs]) to monitor PA productivity. METHODS: The Current Procedural Terminology system specifies six levels of specimen complexity encompassing 176 unique specimen types. Using our institutional dictionary, we designated all specimen types into a priori five levels of complexity based on expected dissection time. We hypothesized that expected time could be matched prospectively with the actual measured dissection time for all specimens. Dissection time data were collected prospectively for 12,775 specimens at two tertiary academic medical centers, and work effort was converted to a numeric DTV equivalent (number of minutes to dissect single specimen/420 minutes in a working day). RESULTS: For 44 of 155 specimen types, measured dissection time for the five levels was lower than expected dissection (P \u3c .0001). Accordingly, those 44 specimen types were reclassified to a lower level. CONCLUSIONS: A numeric standard of the work effort for dissection time for 155 specimen types was developed, validated, and then used prospectively to monitor grossing efficiency of PA workforce

Validation of the IMPROVE-DD risk assessment model for venous thromboembolism among hospitalized patients with COVID-19

© 2021 The Authors. Research and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH). Background: Antithrombotic guidance statements for hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) suggest a universal thromboprophylactic strategy with potential to escalate doses in high-risk patients. To date, no clear approach exists to discriminate patients at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Objectives: The objective of this study is to externally validate the IMPROVE-DD risk assessment model (RAM) for VTE in a large cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 within a multihospital health system. Methods: This retrospective cohort study evaluated the IMPROVE-DD RAM on adult inpatients with COVID-19 hospitalized between March 1, 2020, and April 27, 2020. Diagnosis of VTE was defined by new acute deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism by Radiology Department imaging or point-of-care ultrasound. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted and area under the curve (AUC) calculated. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated using standard methods. Results: A total of 9407 patients were included, with a VTE prevalence of 2.9%. The VTE rate was 0.4% for IMPROVE-DD score 0-1 (low risk), 1.3% for score 2-3 (moderate risk), and 5.3% for score ≥ 4 (high risk). Approximately 45% of the total population scored high VTE risk, while 21% scored low VTE risk. IMPROVE-DD discrimination of low versus medium/high risk showed sensitivity of 0.971, specificity of 0.218, PPV of 0.036, and NPV of 0.996. ROC AUC was 0.702. Conclusions: The IMPROVE-DD VTE RAM demonstrated very good discrimination to identify hospitalized patients with COVID-19 as low, moderate, and high VTE risk in this large external validation study with potential to individualize thromboprophylactic strategies