 |
|
Autopsy Pathology: A Manual and Atlas
Edited by Walter E. Finkbeiner, Philip C. Ursell, and Richard L. Davis
2nd ed, 366 pp, $179
Philadelphia, PA, Saunders/Elsevier Health Sciences, 2009
ISBN-13: 978-1-4160-5453-5
JAMA. 2009;301(22):2391.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
I like to ask this question, and you might find it helpful also. ‘How do you assess the quality of care given to your sickest patients, the ones who die?’ Unless the ‘A’ word (autopsy) comes out right away, they flunk.—George D. Lundberg1
There are those to whom the contributions of an efficient autopsy service to the overall standard of health care are unquestionable. To many, the postmortem observation lends itself to scientific discovery, stimulates clinical research, maintains public as well as family health, and contributes to jurisprudence, medical education, and pathology training. To these sanguine souls, the relentless and seemingly inexorable decline in autopsy rates is inexcusable.
Various excuses (some more valid than others) have been proffered ad nauseam for declining autopsy rates. Among clinicians, the waning of interest in autopsies has been attributed to a disinclination to face failures, medicolegal misgivings, lack of rapport with the relatives . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Syed A. Hoda, MD, Reviewer
sahoda@med.cornell.edu
Carrie Besanceney, MD, Reviewer
New York Presbyterian Hospital–Weill Cornell Medical Center
New York, New York
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
|
