{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013258897418004187, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.48868778280543, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Quality assurance of pathology laboratory, standardization of surgical pathology report and consultation: recent trend].

Three recommendation articles proposed by the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology in the United States were presented as to serve as the baseline of the quality assurance in the pathomorphological diagnosis. The first article was related to the internal quality assurance in the pathology laboratories. The prospective and retrospective methods were presented for daily and monthly bases. The importance of the turnaround time was stressed in addition to the reliable diagnosis. The second article was concerned about the standardization of the surgical pathology report. This was accepted nationwide in the United States like the Bethesda System in cytology. The third article covered the consultation in surgical pathology. The Association divided the consultation into personal and institutional consultations. The role of the institutional consultation has increased markedly in recent years. This is related to the new trend of the patients and their families seeking the second opinion in the clinical diagnosis. In these situations, the clinician frequently requested the new diagnostic impressions of their own pathologists. The second opinion is very important in recent practice in medicine along with informed consent. The pathologists should also be aware of these subjects.