[Quality score in pathological report of prostate biopsies improve professional practice].
OBJECTIVE
Evaluate the influence on professional practices of a systematic indication of a quality score (IGap) in the conclusion of the pathologic reports (CRFS) of prostatic biopsies (PB).


METHODS
Prospective study carried over 339 consecutive 10 core extended standardized PB performed by two urologists over a period of 22 months. The CRFS were computerized. The conclusion included an IGap ranking from 0 to 1, automatically computed from three criteria: the average length of the PB, the number of PB with identified capsules or periprostatic tissues and the average number of fragments per PB. The quality was best when the index is close to 1. A quarterly monitoring of the average of IGap was performed for the two urologists. The student t test was used to compare the averages.


RESULTS
The average of IGap of the urologists A and B was, respectively, of 0.57 (s=0.1; n=184) and 0.66 (s=0.1; n=155): p<0.001. At quarter 1, the averages of IGap of the urologists A and B are, wads of respectively, of 0.47 (s=0.14; n=25) and 0.7 (s=0.12; n=14) (p<0.001). The significant difference of the average of IGap of the urologists A and B observed on quarter 1 progressively decline to disappear from the quarter 4.


CONCLUSIONS
At equivalent protocols, the urologists do not necessarily perform PB of comparable quality. A systematic indication of an IGap in the pathological reports of PB seems to prompt the urologists to modify their practices toward an improvement of the score.
Mondet
F
F
Cabinet d'urologie des Alpes du Sud, polyclinique des Alpes du Sud, 3-5, rue Antonin-Coronat, 05000 Gap cedex, France. fabrice.mondet@wanadoo.fr
Boyer
C
C
Oddou
J-H
JH
Corsois
L
L
Collomb
D
D
D001706:Biopsy / Q000592:standards; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008499:Medical Records / Q000592:standards*; D010818:Practice Patterns, Physicians'; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011467:Prostate / Q000473:pathology*; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care