As digital slides need a lot of storage space, lack of a singular method to acquire and store these large, two-dimensional images has been a major stumbling block in the universal acceptance of this technology. The DICOMS Standard Committee Working Group 26 has put in a tremendous effort to standardize storage methods so that they are more in line with currently available PACS in most hospitals for storage of radiology images. A recent press release (Supplement 145) of these standards was hailed by one and all involved in the field of digital pathology as it will make it easier for hospitals to integrate digital pathology into their already established systems without adding too much overhead costs. Besides, it will enable different vendors developing the scanners to upgrade their products to storage systems that are common across all systems.

Background: Patient identification (ID) errors in point-of-care testing (POCT) can cause test results to be transferred to the wrong patient's chart or prevent results from being transmitted and reported. Despite the implementation of patient barcoding and ongoing operator training at our institution, patient ID errors still occur with glucose POCT. The aim of this study was to develop a solution to reduce identification errors with POCT. Materials and Methods: Glucose POCT was performed by approximately 2,400 clinical operators throughout our health system. Patients are identified by scanning in wristband barcodes or by manual data entry using portable glucose meters. Meters are docked to upload data to a database server which then transmits data to any medical record matching the financial number of the test result. With a new model, meters connect to an interface manager where the patient ID (a nine-digit account number) is checked against patient registration data from admission, discharge, and transfer (ADT) feeds and only matched results are transferred to the patient's electronic medical record. With the new process, the patient ID is checked prior to testing, and testing is prevented until ID errors are resolved. Results: When averaged over a period of a month, ID errors were reduced to 3 errors/month (0.015%) in comparison with 61.5 errors/month (0.319%) before implementing the new meters. Conclusion: Patient ID errors may occur with glucose POCT despite patient barcoding. The verification of patient identification should ideally take place at the bedside before testing occurs so that the errors can be addressed in real time. The introduction of an ADT feed directly to glucose meters reduced patient ID errors in POCT.

Background: Telemedicine has emerged as an efficient means of distributing professional medical expertise over a broad geographic area with few limitations to the various services that can be provided around the globe. Telepathology is particularly well suited to distributing subspecialty expertise in certain environments in an economical fashion, while preserving centers of excellence. Materials and Methods: After a decade of intrainstitutional teleneuropathology for intraoperative consultation, we expanded our practice to cross state lines and communicate between geographically and financially separate medical centers. Results: The result was an effective means of distributing neuropathological expertise while at the same time preserving a professional center of excellence. While technical and legal (i.e., physician licensing) barriers were surmounted, expected and unexpected issues related to communication required commitment on the part of multiple individuals with diverse expertise and responsibilities. Conclusion: Lessons learned from this successful venture can be used to facilitate future efforts in this ever-growing practical vehicle for distributing pathology subspecialty expertise.