Performance of a Web-based Method for Generating Synoptic Reports.

Context: The College of American Pathologists (CAP) requires synoptic reporting of all tumor excisions.

Objective: To compare the performance of different methods of generating synoptic reports.

Methods: Completeness, amendment rates, rate of timely ordering of ancillary studies (KRAS in T4/N1 colon carcinoma), and structured data file extraction were compared for four different synoptic report generating methods.

Results: Use of the printed tumor protocols directly from the CAP website had the lowest completeness (84%) and highest amendment (1.8%) rates. Reformatting these protocols was associated with higher completeness (94%, < 0.001) and reduced amendment (1%, = 0.20) rates. Extraction into a structured data file was successful 93% of the time. Word-based macros improved completeness (98% vs. 94%, < 0.001) but not amendment rates (1.5%). KRAS was ordered before sign out 89% of the time. In contrast, a web-based product with a reminder flag when items were missing, an embedded flag for data extraction, and a reminder to order KRAS when appropriate resulted in improved completeness (100%, = 0.005), amendment rates (0.3%, = 0.03), KRAS ordering before sign out (100%, = 0.23), and structured data extraction (100%, < 0.001) without reducing the speed ( = 0.34) or accuracy ( = 1.00) of data extraction by the reader.

Conclusion: Completeness, amendment rates, ancillary test ordering rates, and data extraction rates vary significantly with the method used to construct the synoptic report. A web-based method compares favorably with all other methods examined and does not reduce reader usability.