Placental Pathology Reporting Practices in Australian Stillbirths: A Quality Review.

IF 1.3
Tania Marsden, Teck Yee Khong, Jane E Dahlstrom, Fran Boyle, Mu Cheng, Yin Ping Wong, Stacey Prystupa, Gretchen Pomare, Joanna Perry-Keene, Vicki Flenady, Jessica Sexton
{"title":"Placental Pathology Reporting Practices in Australian Stillbirths: A Quality Review.","authors":"Tania Marsden, Teck Yee Khong, Jane E Dahlstrom, Fran Boyle, Mu Cheng, Yin Ping Wong, Stacey Prystupa, Gretchen Pomare, Joanna Perry-Keene, Vicki Flenady, Jessica Sexton","doi":"10.1177/10935266251349492","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Stillbirth continues to pose a significant public health challenge. Autopsy and placental assessments are recognized as the gold standard for stillbirth investigation. The utility of these procedures can vary based on the quality of the examination. The aim of this study is to determine the quality of placenta pathology reporting in Australia in the context of a stillbirth.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Placenta pathology reports from stillbirths were reviewed from 18 maternity hospital from 2013 to 2018. The Khong tool was used to produce a placenta quality score (PQS), by a blinded panel of assessors to the cause of death. Outcome measures were the number of reports achieving the minimal acceptable score (MAS) of 75% or a poor score (PS) of 50% of the PQS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>560 placental pathology reports of which 494 were singleton and 66 were twin placentas. 282 (50%) achieved the MAS score. Macroscopic items were recorded well and microscopic items recorded poorly.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The standard of placenta pathology reporting can be improved in Australia. The use of templates or checklists for both macroscopic descriptions and histological reporting is recommended to ensure all key components are described.</p>","PeriodicalId":520743,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric and developmental pathology : the official journal of the Society for Pediatric Pathology and the Paediatric Pathology Society","volume":" ","pages":"10935266251349492"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric and developmental pathology : the official journal of the Society for Pediatric Pathology and the Paediatric Pathology Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10935266251349492","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Stillbirth continues to pose a significant public health challenge. Autopsy and placental assessments are recognized as the gold standard for stillbirth investigation. The utility of these procedures can vary based on the quality of the examination. The aim of this study is to determine the quality of placenta pathology reporting in Australia in the context of a stillbirth.

Materials and methods: Placenta pathology reports from stillbirths were reviewed from 18 maternity hospital from 2013 to 2018. The Khong tool was used to produce a placenta quality score (PQS), by a blinded panel of assessors to the cause of death. Outcome measures were the number of reports achieving the minimal acceptable score (MAS) of 75% or a poor score (PS) of 50% of the PQS.

Results: 560 placental pathology reports of which 494 were singleton and 66 were twin placentas. 282 (50%) achieved the MAS score. Macroscopic items were recorded well and microscopic items recorded poorly.

Conclusions: The standard of placenta pathology reporting can be improved in Australia. The use of templates or checklists for both macroscopic descriptions and histological reporting is recommended to ensure all key components are described.

澳大利亚死产胎盘病理报告实践:质量回顾。
背景:死产继续构成重大的公共卫生挑战。尸检和胎盘评估被认为是死产调查的金标准。这些程序的效用可以根据检查的质量而变化。本研究的目的是确定质量的胎盘病理报告在澳大利亚的背景下死产。材料与方法:回顾性分析2013 - 2018年18家妇产医院死产胎盘病理报告。Khong工具用于产生胎盘质量评分(PQS),由盲法评估小组对死亡原因进行评估。结果测量是达到最低可接受分数(MAS) 75%或较差分数(PS) 50%的报告数量。结果:560例胎盘病理报告,其中单胎494例,双胎66例。282人(50%)达到MAS评分。宏观项目记录良好,微观项目记录不佳。结论:澳大利亚胎盘病理报告标准有待提高。建议使用模板或检查表进行宏观描述和组织学报告,以确保描述所有关键组件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信