MALPRACTICE AT PATHOLOGY LABORATORY FROM THE ASPECT OF FORENSIC SCIENCES

Öz

Objective: Medical practice errors, a fundamental study area within Forensic Sciences, encompass the field of pathology with its specific operational conditions and high-risk zones. This study aims to evaluate the current conditions of pathology laboratories, identify the primary challenges encountered in practice, and propose systemic solutions for error mitigation. The central hypothesis of the research (H1) posits that the laboratory environment and its management are critical factors in preventing medical malpractice within the scope of pathological evaluations. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted across thirty-one pathology laboratories located in Istanbul. Data collection was performed through face-to-face interviews with laboratory personnel, utilizing a structured questionnaire designed to capture operational dynamics. The data obtained from these interviews were subsequently evaluated using descriptive analysis to determine the distribution and frequency of errors across various laboratory stages. Results: The findings demonstrate that the pre-analytical stage is the most error-prone phase in pathology laboratories, accounting for 51.6% of all recorded errors. These complications primarily manifest as inaccurate sampling, mislabeling of specimens, logistical inefficiencies, and procedural documentation errors. The results highlight that the majority of diagnostic risks originate before the technical analysis of the tissue begins. Conclusion: To minimize medical practice errors in pathology laboratories, it is essential to develop an educated and sufficient workforce, ensure the continuity of in-service training, and maintain a laboratory environment that is both technologically advanced and strictly controllable. Furthermore, enhancing employees' awareness of their legal responsibilities is a vital component in reducing malpractice risks and ensuring professional accountability within the forensic framework.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Medical malpractice in pathology
• Medical malpractice
• Anatomical pathology
• Laboratory practices
• Error reduction strategies
• Patient safety.

Etik Beyan

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Institutional review board approval and informed consent from participating laboratory personnel were obtained prior to the commencement of the study.

ADLİ BİLİMLER AÇISINDAN PATOLOJİ LABORATUVARINDA TIBBİ UYGULAMA HATASI

Öz

Adli Bilimlerin çalışma alanlarından biri olan tıbbi uygulama hatalarının değerlendirilmesinde patoloji alanı da kendine özgü koşulları ve riskli alanları ile yer almaktadır. Bu çalışma, patoloji laboratuvar koşullarını değerlendirip yaşanan sorunları saptayarak çözüm önerilerini sunmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu çalışmada İstanbul’da bulunan 31 patoloji laboratuvarında yürütüldü. Her bir laboratuvarda görevli personelle bir soru formu araçlığıyla yüz yüze görüşme şeklinde yapıldı. Yapılan görüşmeler sonrasında elde edilen bulgular tanımlayıcı analizle belirtildi. Çalışmada elde edilen bulgular çalışmaya katılan laboratuvarların en çok görülen hata evrelerine ilişkin yapılan karşılaştırma ile bu çalışmanın ana hipotezi “H1: Patolojide tıbbi uygulama hatalarının önlenmesinde laboratuvar önemlidir.” araştırılmıştır. Bu çalışma sonucunda patoloji laboratuvarlarındaki hataların en sık meydana geldiği aşamanın (%51,6) preanalitik aşama olduğu saptanmıştır. Bunlar; hatalı örnek alma, yanlış etiketleme, lojistik sorunlar ve hatalar olarak saptanmıştır. Bunlar; hatalı örnek alma, yanlış etiketleme, lojistik sorunlar ve hatalar olarak saptanmıştır. Sonuç olarak patoloji laboratuvarlarında tıbbi uygulama hatalarını en aza indirmek için hem eğitimli ve yeterli işgücü, sürekli meslek içi eğitim, gelişen teknolojiye uygun ve denetlenebilir laboratuvar ortamı, hem de çalışanların yasal sorumlulukları ile ilgili farkındalıklarının geliştirilmesi çok önemlidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Patolojide tıbbi uygulama hatası
• Tıbbi uygulama hataları
• Anatomik patoloji
• Laboratuvar uygulamaları
• Hata azaltma stratejileri
• Hasta güvenliği.

Kaynakça

1. Kaya S. What is patient safety culture, and how can it be improved? J Qual Accredit Patient Saf Healthc Serv. 2009;1(1):32-34.
2. Polat O. Medical Malpractice. 4th rev ed. Ankara, Turkey: Seçkin Publications; 2025:5-18.
3. European Commission. Medical errors. Eurobarometer website. Published 2006. Accessed February 13, 2026. http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_241_en.pdf
4. National Patient Safety Foundation. National Patient Safety Foundation. Published 2017. Accessed February 13, 2026. https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/National_Patient_Safety_Foundation.html
5. Raab SS, Nakhleh RE, Ruby SG. Patient safety in anatomic pathology: measuring discrepancy frequencies and causes. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129(4):459-466. doi: 10.5858/2005-129-459-PSIAOM
6. Troxel DB. Trends in pathology malpractice claims. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012;36(1):e1-e5. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e31823836bb
7. Foucar E. Error in anatomic pathology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001;116(suppl 1):S34-S46. doi: 10.1309/DDKV-E4YP-CJ5Q-3M4V
8. Li Y, Gao D, Tu M, Luo YZ, Deng ZH. Investigation of pathology malpractice claims in China from 2002-2015. J Forensic Leg Med. 2017;48:30-34. doi: 10.1016/j.jflm.2017.04.005

9. Zarbo RJ, Meier FA, Raab SS. Error detection in anatomic pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129(10):1237-1245. doi: 10.5858/2005-129-1237-EDIAP
10. Pfeifer JD. Identity determination in diagnostic surgical pathology. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2019;36(5):355-365. doi: 10.1053/j.semdp.2019.06.001
11. Kornstein MJ, Byrne SP. The medicolegal aspect of error in pathology: a search of jury verdicts and settlements. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2001;131(4):615-618. doi: 10.5858/2007-131-615-TMAOEI
12. Jena AB, Seabury S, Lakdawalla D, Chandra A. Malpractice risk according to physician specialty. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(7):629-636. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1012370
13. Hammerling JA. A review of medical errors in laboratory diagnosis and where we are today. Lab Med. 2012;43(2):41-44. doi: 10.1309/LM8J54JW9LUWSMRV
14. Makary MA, Epstein J, Pronovost PJ, et al. Surgical specimen identification errors: a new measure of quality in surgical care. Surgery. 2007;141(4):450-455. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2006.08.018
15. Nakhleh RE, Idowu MO, Souers RJ, Meier FA, Bekeris LG. Mislabeling of cases, specimens, blocks, and slides: a College of American Pathologists study of 136 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011;135(8):969-974. doi: 10.5858/2010-0726-CPR