461 DOI: 10.1309/AJCPTBN0GMZK6AYF 461 © American Society for Clinical Pathology AJCP / Editorial Quality in Pathology

Quality is something that every pathologist is commit-ted to—at least that is what every pathologist I have ever met has told me. Nevertheless, while there are many publications documenting ways in which the process of pathology can be improved, very few of these processes are adopted. Why? And when something new appears, how can you tell if it is going to catch on or not? In this issue of the Journal, Zarbo and colleagues1 do a wonderful job of demonstrating what a group of patholo-gists who are fully committed to the process and who appear to have real financial and administrative support can do to improve quality. They have shown that bar coding, along with significant changes in the way people actually handle specimens and the culture in which they work can lead to significant improvement in specimen misidentificatio