Digitalization of pathology in a multicenter setup: A user experience study and comparison of two alternative implementation strategies

Abstract

<p><b>Background</b>: Fimlab Laboratories and Turku University Hospital implemented digital pathology simultaneously but with different strategies. At Fimlab, all histological slides were scanned starting from the first go-live date, allowing individual pathologists to determine when to cease the distribution of glass slides. In contrast, Turku initiated slide scanning and screen diagnostics gradually focusing on anatomical subspecialties. <br></p><p><b>Materials and methods</b>: A voluntary user experience survey was completed by 54 out of 66 pathologists (81.8 %) one year after transitioning to digital diagnostics. <br></p><p><b>Results</b>: The median utility grade of digital pathology was 9 in both sites (mode 10, mean 8.5, range 1-10). Screen diagnostics was adopted in <= 1 month for 75.9 % of the pathologists. The vast majority (86.8 %) of the pathologists signed out 90-100 % of the cases digitally, and most had analyzed over 2000 cases using digital pathology. Digital pathology workflow was considered faster by 62.3 % of respondents whereas 17 % preferred light microscopy. Remote working was reported as convenient by 96.8 % of respondents at Fimlab and 62.5 % at Turku. In the self-assessment questions, 77.8 % of respondents identified as fluent users.<br></p><p> <b>Conclusions</b>: Both strategies led to widespread use of DP in less than 10 months. The median utility of digital transition was excellent and most pathologists adapted to the screen rapidly. After one year, the vast majority of the cases were reported digitally only, which we consider sufficient for workflow gains. Almost no statistical differences were seen after one year of implementation, suggesting both strategies are viable.</p>