Template:Autopsy - comprehensiveness: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
+otherlegend |
Noheader |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
*'''Double-reading''': If your report is likely to undergo double reading by another pathologist before sign-out, it needs to be more detailed, because the doctor who will do the double-reading then knows that you have looked at those locations. | *'''Double-reading''': If your report is likely to undergo double reading by another pathologist before sign-out, it needs to be more detailed, because the doctor who will do the double-reading then knows that you have looked at those locations. | ||
*Highly '''suspected''' locations, such as given from the referral. | *Highly '''suspected''' locations, such as given from the referral. | ||
{{Comprehensiveness}} {{#if: {{{otherlegend|}}} | {{Comprehensiveness|noheader=yes}} {{#if: {{{otherlegend|}}} | ||
| | | | ||
;Other legend: | ;Other legend: | ||
Revision as of 18:20, 10 September 2020
Comprehensiveness
Factors supporting a relatively more comprehensive autopsy and/or report, particularly in the inclusion of negated findings:
- Lack of explanation from existing evidence. On the other hand, for example, upon finding an obvious aortic rupture, the rest of the autopsy is less relevant and may be relatively short.
- Double-reading: If your report is likely to undergo double reading by another pathologist before sign-out, it needs to be more detailed, because the doctor who will do the double-reading then knows that you have looked at those locations.
- Highly suspected locations, such as given from the referral.
On this resource, the following formatting is used for comprehensiveness:
- Minimal depth
- (Moderate depth)
- ((Comprehensive))