Risk Management Reference List

1. Austin RM. Public expectations, achievable cervical screening sensitivity, and the standard of practice. Cancer Cytopathol 2003;99:1-3.
2. Bosch MMC, Bietveld-Scheffers PEM, Boon ME. Characteristics of false negative smears tested in the normal screening situation. Acta Cytol 1992;36:711-716.
3. Colgan TJ. Litigation and the Canadian Pap test: Perspectives from a single-payer system. Diagn Cytopathol 2000;22:207-10.
4. Epstein JI. Pathologists and the judicial process: How to avoid it. Am J Surg Pathol 2001;25:527-537.
5. Frable WJ. Litigation cells. Definition and observations on a cell type in cervical vaginal smears not addressed in the Bethesda System. Diagn Cytopathol 1994;11:213-215.
6. Frable WJ. Does a zero error standard exist for the Papanicolaou smear? A pathologist's perspective. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1997;121:301-10.
7. Frable WJ, Austin RM, Greening SE. Medicolegal Affairs: IAC Task Force Summary. Acta Cytologica 1998;42:76-132.
8. Greening SE. Errors in cervical smears: Minimizing the risk of medicolegal consequences. Monogr Pathol 1997;39:16-39.
9. Greening SE, Somrak TM. Medicolegal issues in cytology: legal principles and liability outlook. Cytopath Ann 1994, pp. 65-81.
10. Kline TJ. Cytopathology: negligence and a lawyer's opinion. Diagn Cytopathol 1994;11:219.
11. Krieger P, Naryshkin S. Random rescreening of cytologic smears: a practical and effective component of quality assurance programs in both large and small cytology laboratories. Acta Cytol 1994;38:291-298.
12. McCoy DR. Defending the Pap smear: A proactive approach to the litigation threat in gynecologic cytology. Am J Clin Pathol 2000;114:S52-8.
13. McCoy DR, Sidoti MS. The Pap smear liability crisis. Am J Clin Pathol 1999;111:14-17.
14. Meyers JI. The perspective of a plaintiff's attorney in dissembling the art of medicine as it relates to the interpretation and management of cervical smears. Am J Clin Pathol 2001;116:S116-22.
15. Renshaw AA. Measuring sensitivity in gynecologic cytology. Cancer Cytopathol. 2002;96:210-217.
16. Robb J. The Pap smear as a screening test: why not put the screening error rate in the report? Diagn Cytopathol 1993;9:485-486.
17. Sherman ME, Schiffman H, Lorenz AT, et al. Toward objective quality assurance in cervical cytopathology. Am J Clin Pathol 1994;102:182-187.
18. Sirota RL. Quality and liability issues with the Papanicolaou smear. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1997;121:287-91.
19. Sirota RL. The institute of medicine's report on medical error. Implications for pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000;124:1674-1678.
20. Skoumai SM, Florell SR, Bydalek MK, Hunter III WJ. Malpractice protection: communication of diagnostic uncertainty. Diagn Cytopathol 1996;14:385-389.
21. Troxel DB, Sabella JD. Problem areas in pathology practice uncovered by a review of malpractice claims. Am J Surg Pathol 1994;18:821-831.
22. Wang S. The consequences of public disclosure. An opinion from Newport Hospital, Newport, Rhode Island. Diagn Cytopathol 1994;11:211-212.
23. The Doctor's Company Website. http://www.thedoctors.com
    

    Risk management guidelines for cervical cytology. Pathology: A report of claims review panels Pathology risk management: Breast biopsy and fine-needle aspiration Requests for pathology specimens