Open AccessQuality improvement project in cervical cancer screening: practical measures for monitoring laboratory performance
Author(s) -
Tarkkanen Jussi,
Geagea Antoine,
Nieminen Pekka,
Anttila Ahti
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
acta obstetricia et gynecologica scandinavica
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.401
H-Index - 102
eISSN - 1600-0412
pISSN - 0001-6349
DOI - 10.1034/j.1600-0412.2003.820115.x
Subject(s) - medicine , colposcopy , cervical cancer , workload , cancer detection , cancer , gynecology , medical physics , computer science , operating system
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2003; 82: 82–88. © Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2003 Background. We conducted a quality improvement project in a cervical cancer screening programme in Helsinki in order to see if detection of precancerous lesions could be influenced by external (participation rate) and internal (laboratory praxis) quality measures. Methods. In order to increase the participation rate, a second personal invitation to Pap‐test was mailed to nonparticipants of the first call. In order to improve the quality of screening, the cytotechnicians monitored their performance longitudinally by recording the number of slides reviewed per day, the pick‐up rate of abnormal smears, the report of the consulting cytopathologist, and the number of histologically verified lesions detected from the cases that they had screened. Regular sessions were held to compare the histological findings with the cytological findings of all cases referred for colposcopy. No pressure was applied on the cytotechnicians to ensure that they felt comfortable with their daily workload. Results. A total of 110 000 smears were screened for cervical cancer at the Helsinki City Hospital during 1996–99. Initially, the overall participation rate increased from 62% to 71%. The number of histologically confirmed precancerous lesions (CIN 1–3) more than doubled and their detection rate increased from 0.32% to 0.72%. Conclusions. Continuous education and feedback from daily work performance were important, yet rather inexpensive means in increasing laboratory performance. Additional measures are needed to further increase the participation rate. Impact of the quality measures on cancer incidence needs to be assessed later on.