Pathologists' attitudes to implementing telepathology

Abstract

If pathologists will benefit so much from using telepathology, why is it taking so long to be introduced? This question has been discussed between experts, but the potential users are rarely asked for their opinions. A questionnaire was sent to the 256 members of the Austrian Society of Pathology; this addressed general aspects of telemedicine, telepathology in frozen-section services and expert consultation, videoconferencing technologies, teleteaching and teletraining. The response rate was 46 . In general, the pathologists thought that telemedicine could become valuable in their daily routine. However, pathologists were most afraid of sampling errors in remote diagnosis and would not readily accept an alternative to the conventional method of looking at a sample. This is only possible using realtime, remotely controlled microscopes. Telepathology systems providing only still images would not be acceptable to most respondents. There was interest in the use of videoconferencing for clinicopathological conferences. Teleteaching and teletraining were seen as welcome additional techniques, but were nevertheless judged unable to replace classical methods of teaching and training.