Comparative Analysis of Three Workload Measurement Methodologies in Surgical Pathology: Conclusions and Implications on Public Health Care and Costing of Pathology Services.

Abstract

To carry out a comparative analysis between 3 different workload measurement systems in surgical pathology: the Resource-Based Relative Value Scale (RBRVS), the Level 4 Equivalent (L4E), and the Automatable Activity-Based Approach to Complexity Unit Scoring (AABACUS). The RBRVS is one of the most widely used systems in terms of attempting to measure workload, whereas it has been proposed as a means of costing (and thus setting reimbursement rates) of surgical pathology services in Greece, despite being widely criticized for its inaccurate design. Surgical pathology workload for 1 representative month at Evaggelismos General Hospital was assessed using both the RBRVS and the 2 newer methods. Pearson correlation showed a high level of correlation (0.902, P < .01) between the L4E and AABACUS but less so between either of those and the RBRVS (0.712 and 0.626, respectively; P < .01). The highest level of discrepancy was observed in the subspecialties of genitourinary, breast, dermatopathology, and gastrointestinal pathology. In addition, total and average working hours as calculated by the RBRVS were significantly lower compared with the other 2 systems. The RBRVS tends to underestimate actual workload as a result of its inability to take specific workload parameters into account, such as slide count or the need for intradepartmental consultation.