Search

Objective: To assess health professionals' and coroners' attitudes towards non-minimally and minimally invasive autopsy in the perinatal and paediatric setting., Methods: A qualitative study using semistructured interviews. Data were analysed thematically., Results: Twenty-five health professionals (including perinatal/paediatric pathologists and anatomical pathology technologists, obstetricians, fetal medicine consultants and bereavement midwives, intensive care consultants and family liaison nurses, a consultant neonatologist and a paediatric radiologist) and four coroners participated. Participants viewed less invasive methods of autopsy as a positive development in prenatal and paediatric care that could increase autopsy rates. Several procedural and psychological benefits were highlighted including improved diagnostic accuracy in some circumstances, potential for faster turnaround times, parental familiarity with imaging and laparoscopic approaches, and benefits to parents and faith groups who object to invasive approaches. Concerns around the limitations of the technology such not reaching the same levels of certainty as full autopsy, unsuitability of imaging in certain circumstances, the potential for missing a diagnosis (or misdiagnosis) and de-skilling the workforce were identified. Finally, a number of implementation issues were raised including skills and training requirements for pathologists and radiologists, access to scanning equipment, required computational infrastructure, need for a multidisciplinary approach to interpret results, cost implications, equity of access and acceptance from health professionals and hospital managers., Conclusion: Health professionals and coroners viewed less invasive autopsy as a positive development in perinatal and paediatric care. However, to inform implementation a detailed health economic analysis and further exploration of parental views, particularly in different religious groups, are required., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Sudden unexplained death in epilepsy is a catastrophic event that requires autopsy for definitive diagnosis. Lack of awareness of sudden unexplained death in epilepsy as an important cause of death in epilepsy has been observed among coroners and pathologists. This survey study of US coroners and medical examiners (MEs) assesses their postmortem examinations of persons with epilepsy who had died suddenly without obvious cause. Analysis of the 510 survey responses shows that pathologists are significantly more likely than nonpathologists to inquire routinely about a history of cardiac disease, remove the brain for examination, or collect blood samples for determinations of anticonvulsant and psychotropic drugs. Urban coroners and MEs are significantly more likely than their nonurban colleagues to remove the brain for examination or collect blood samples for these determinations. Lack of family consent and the cost of autopsy are major reasons for not performing an autopsy of persons with epilepsy. Our study underscores the importance of promoting to all coroners and MEs and to the public the need for thorough autopsy of persons with epilepsy when the cause of death is not obvious.

A survey of death investigation systems in Canada was conducted by questionnaire and included questions on the type of system used (coroner or medical examiner), budget, method of appointment and qualifications of coroners and medical examiners, responsible department of government, training requirements, laboratory facilities, and the utilization of investigators and pathologists by each jurisdiction. Of the population of Canada 81.5% reside in coroner jurisdictions, the primary death investigator in 81% of the population is a licensed physician. The majority of jurisdictions either require or provide training in death investigation. All death investigation systems are under the respective provincial or territorial department of Justice or Attorney General with the chief coroner or chief medical examiner appointed by their respective provincial cabinet. The qualifications of the chief coroner vary with jurisdiction, while in 75% of medical examiner jurisdictions the chief medical examiner must be a pathologist. On a per capita basis medical examiner systems are less expensive to operate than coroner systems.

We mailed survey questionnaires to a random sample of medicolegal offices throughout the USA. The survey asked how many forensic pathologists were used, their American Board of Pathology forensic examination (Board) status, how many autopsies they performed, and, if payment were fee-for-service, what fees were paid for medicolegal autopsies. Response rate was 61%, with 188 offices returning questionnaires. The average fee, was $518 with a standard error of $27. The number of fee-for-service autopsies was split evenly between Board qualified and Board ineligible pathologists, accounting for about one-third of medicolegal autopsies nationwide. Although smaller offices used more pathologists ineligible for forensic Boards, they paid a premium for such qualification. Larger offices used more forensic Board qualified pathologists, but paid them less than those ineligible to take the examination! Overall there was no significant premium paid for Board qualification. The average fee paid is far less than the published estimates of the cost of an autopsy. The low fees paid may reflect: (1) the value of the teaching experience supplied to medical students and/or residents; (2) pathologists performing medico-legal examinations as community service; and (3) the lower marginal cost of additional autopsies.