Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 1991 Nov 16;303(6812):1244-6.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.303.6812.1244.

Communication of results of necropsies in north east Thames region

Affiliations

Communication of results of necropsies in north east Thames region

P Whitty et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the adequacy of reporting of results of necropsy to referring clinicians and to general practitioners.

Design: Questionnaire survey of referring clinicians and general practitioners of deceased patients in four districts in North East Thames region. Patients were selected by retrospective systematic sampling of 50 or more necropsy reports in each district.

Setting: One teaching hospital, one inner London district general hospital, and two outer London district general hospitals.

Participants: 70 consultants and 146 general practitioners who were asked about 214 necropsy reports; coroners' reports were excluded.

Main outcome measures: Time taken for dispatch of final reports after necropsy, consultants' recognition of the reports, general practitioners' recognition of the reports or of their findings, and consultants' recall of having discussed the findings with relatives.

Results: Only two hospitals dispatched final reports including histological findings (mean time to dispatch 144 days and 22 days respectively). 42 (60%) consultants and 83 (57%) general practitioners responded to the survey. The percentage of reports seen by consultants varied from 37% (n = 13) to 87% (n = 36); in all, only 47% (39/83) of general practitioners had been informed of the findings by any method. Consultants could recall having discussed findings with only 42% (47/112) of relatives.

Conclusions: Communication of results of necropsies to hospital clinicians, general practitioners, and relatives is currently inadequate in these hospitals.

Implications and action: A report of the macroscopic findings should be dispatched immediately after necropsy to clinicians and general practitioners; relatives should routinely be invited to discuss the necroscopic findings. One department has already altered its practice.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

  • Communication of results of necropsies.
    Berlin A, Spencer J, Bhopal R. Berlin A, et al. BMJ. 1992 Jan 25;304(6821):252. doi: 10.1136/bmj.304.6821.252-b. BMJ. 1992. PMID: 1739807 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
  • Auditing necropsies.
    Lauder I. Lauder I. BMJ. 1991 Nov 16;303(6812):1214-5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.303.6812.1214. BMJ. 1991. PMID: 1747636 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

References

    1. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1990 Jul;24(3):185-8 - PubMed
    1. JAMA. 1988 Dec 16;260(23):3461-5 - PubMed
    1. Lancet. 1989 Feb 25;1(8635):442 - PubMed
    1. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1987 Nov;37(304):496-7 - PubMed
    1. Am J Clin Pathol. 1986 Aug;86(2):133-8 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources