The effect of continuous monitoring of cytologic-histologic correlation data on cervical cancer screening performance

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 132, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 16-22

  Raab, Stephen S ^a,e   Jones, Bruce A ^b   Souers, Rhona ^c   Tworek, Joseph A ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

^c Molecular Pathology Division   (United States)

^d ST JOSEPH MERCY HOSPITAL   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATYPICAL GLANDULAR CELL; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL LABORATORY; COLLEGE OF AMERICAN PATHOLOGIST; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; CYTOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; EVALUATION; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; MONITORING; ORGANIZATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; Q TRACK PROGRAM; SELF REPORT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SQUAMOUS CELL; STATISTICAL MODEL; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; UTERINE CERVIX BIOPSY; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER;

BIOPSY; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; FEMALE; HISTOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES; HUMANS; LABORATORIES, HOSPITAL; MASS SCREENING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; QUALITY CONTROL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 38049085395     PISSN: 00039985     EISSN: 15432165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Jones BA, Novis DA. Cervical biopsy-cytology correlation: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 22 439 correlations in 348 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996;120:523-531.
2. Raab SS, Grzybicki DM, Janosky JE, et al. Clinical impact and frequency of anatomic pathology errors in cancer diagnoses. Cancer. 2005;104:2205-2213.
3. Clary JM, Silverman JF, Liu Y, et al. Cytohistologic discrepancies: a means to improve pathology practice and patient outcomes. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;117:567-573.
4. Joste NE, Crum P, Cibas ES. Cytologic/histologic correlation for quality control in cervicovaginal cytology: experience with 1,582 paired cases. Am J Clin Pathol. 1995;103:32-34.
5. Cioc AM, Julius CJ, Proca DM, Tranovich VL, Kayhani-Rofagha S. Cervical biopsy/cytology correlation data can be collected prospectively and shared clinically. Diagn Cytopathol. 2002;26:49-52.
6. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care Financing Administration. Clinical laboratory improvement amendments of 1988: final rule. Fed Regist. 1992;57(7146):§493.1-493.25. Codified at 42 CFR §493.
7. Vrbin CM, Grzybicki DM, Zaleski S, Raab SS. Variability in cytologic-histologic correlation practices and implications for patient safety. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129:893-898.
8. Grzybicki DM. Barriers to the implementation of patient safety initiatives. Clin Lab Med. 2004;24:901-911.
9. Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Campbell M, Ramsay C. Research designs for studies evaluating the effectiveness of change and improvement strategies. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12:47-52.
10. Zarbo RJ, Jones BA, Friedberg RC, et al. A College of American Pathologists program of continuous laboratory monitoring and longitudinal performance tracking. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002;126:1036-1044.
11. Raab SS, Tworek JA, Souers R, Zarbo RJ. The value of monitoring frozen section-permanent section correlation data over time. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130:337-342.
12. Wagar EA, Stankovic AK, Wilkinson DS, Walsh M, Souers RJ. Assessment monitoring of laboratory critical values: a College of American Pathologists Q-Tracks study of 180 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131:44-49.
13. Bekeris LG, Tworek JA, Walsh MK, Valenstein PN. Trends in blood culture contamination: a College of American Pathologists Q-Tracks study of 356 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129:1222-1225.
14. Novis DA. Detecting and preventing the occurrence of errors in the practices of laboratory medicine and anatomic pathology: 15 years' experience with the College of American Pathologists' Q-PROBES and Q-TRACKS programs. Clin Lab Med. 2004;24:965-978.
15. Novis DA, Walsh MK, Dale JC, Howanitz PJ. Continuous monitoring of stat and routine outlier turnaround times: two College of American Pathologists Q-Tracks monitors in 291 hospitals. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2004;128:621-626.
16. Howanitz PJ, Renner SW, Walsh MK. Continuous wristband monitoring over 2 years decreases identification errors: a College of American Pathologists Q-Tracks Study. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002;126:809-815.
17. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA. 2002;287:2114-2119.
18. Davey E, Barratt A, Irwig B, et al. Effect of study design and quality on unsatisfactory rates, cytology classifications, and accuracy in liquid-based versus conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review. Lancet. 2006;367:122-132.
19. Ferenczy A, Robitaille J, Franco E, et al. Conventional cervical cytologic smears vs Thin Prep smears: a paired comparison study on cervical cytology. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:1136-1142.
20. Klinkhamer PJ, Meerding WJ, Rosier PF, Hanselaar AG. Liquid-based cervical cytology. Cancer. 2003;99:263-271.
21. Moseley RP, Paget S. Liquid-based cytology: is this the way forward for cervical screening? Cytopathology. 2002;13:71-82.
22. Sulik SM, Kroeger K, Schultz JK, et al. Are fluid-based cytologies superior to the conventional Papanicolaou test? A systematic review. J Fam Pract. 2001;50:1040-1046.
23. Wright TC Jr, Cox JT, Massad LS, et al. 2001 Consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:295-304.
24. Schiffman M, Solomon D. Findings to date from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study (ALTS). Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003;127:946-949.
25. Manos MM, Kinney WK, Hurley LB, et al. Identifying women with cervical neoplasia: using human papillomavirus DNA testing for equivocal Papanicolaou results. JAMA. 1999;281:1605-1610.
26. Dalla Palma P, Pojer A, Girlando S. HPV triage of women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: a 3-year experience in an Italian organized programme. Cytopathology. 2005;16:3-6.
27. Kulasingam SL, Kim JJ, Lawrence WF, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis based on the atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance/low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion Triage Study (ALTS). J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:82-83.
28. Levine L, Lucci JA III, Dinh TV. Atypical glandular cells: new Bethesda terminology and management guidelines. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2003;58:399-406.
29. Meath AJ, Carley ME, Wilson TO. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance: review of final histologic diagnoses. J Reprod Med. 2002;47:249-252.
30. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, eds. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999.
31. Zarbo RJ. Monitoring anatomic pathology practice through quality assurance measures. Clin Lab Med. 1999;19:713-742.