Premium
Survey of training and education of cytotechnologists in Europe
Author(s) -
Anic V.,
Eide M. L.
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
cytopathology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.512
H-Index - 48
eISSN - 1365-2303
pISSN - 0956-5507
DOI - 10.1111/cyt.12168
Subject(s) - medicine , accreditation , training (meteorology) , bachelor , medical education , family medicine , bachelor degree , nursing , political science , physics , meteorology , law
Objective This report presents the results of a survey of the training and education of cytotechnologists (CTs) in 15 European countries and suggests guidelines on which future education should be developed. Methods A questionnaire was sent to 25 countries in 2011: 14 with and 11 without a European Advisory Committee of Cytotechnology ( EACC ) member or representative. We received responses from 18 countries, among which three were excluded from the survey because they did not have CTs in training. Results The number of fully trained and employed CTs in these 15 European countries varied from 35 to 2600. The level of responsibility for most CT s in 14 of these countries was intermediate (signing out negative and inadequate gynaecological samples), whereas seven also had a minority of CT s at an advanced level (signing out abnormal gynaecological samples). Basic education was equally divided (7/8) between countries requiring a bachelor degree or training in medical technology before entry into cytology training. The training in cytology was given as a separate course/education or a combination of separate courses and in‐house training, but was often confined to gynaecological cytology. It was recognized that CTs should extend their activities with the advent of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and vaccination. The training requirement for CTs was usually decided by the national professional society. Most cytology training programmes were accredited by academic institutions at university level and were recognized nationally in almost all of the countries. For most of the countries, the optimal education in the future should be at university level with a diploma in cytotechnology certified or accredited by the European Federation of Cytology Societies. Conclusion The survey showed variation in basic education and cytology training, especially with respect to non‐gynaecological cytology, although graduate entry was favoured. The role of CTs is changing and the education and training programmes need to adapt to these changes.