A mixed picture on efficiency
The evidence review describes mixed findings. Some studies report slower digital sign-out than glass-slide review; others describe comparable or improved efficiency. Workflow integration, case type and pathologist experience are important considerations.
Reading time is not the whole service
Time spent interpreting a case is different from the work of handling, distributing, retrieving and sharing slides. Digital workflows can support remote access, archiving and consultation even where reading time is unchanged or initially longer.
Integration with the laboratory information system and reporting process matters. The review also describes adjustment and learning effects as users gain experience.
Questions for implementation
- How well do the viewer, laboratory information system and reporting process work together?
- How does performance vary by case type and pathologist experience?
- What changes in the time required for slide handling, retrieval and consultation?
- Are efficiency gains measured across the whole workflow rather than inferred from one task?
Evaluate in the local setting
The review supports careful assessment of digital pathology in its local setting rather than an automatic assumption of improved productivity. Diagnostic agreement, reading time and wider workflow effects should not be treated as interchangeable measures.
Claims about performance should identify the setting, integration and level of experience behind the result. A benefit demonstrated for one part of a service may not describe the entire pathway.