Measuring the significance of workload on performance of cytotechnologists in gynecologic cytology: A study using rapid prescreening

Cancer

Volumn 114, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 149-154

  Deschenes, Majorie ^a   Renshaw, Andrew A ^b   Auger, Manon ^a,c  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY HEALTH CENTRE   (Canada)

^b BAPTIST HOSPITAL OF MIAMI   (United States)

^c MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cytopathology; Gynecologic cytology; Gynecology; Pap smear; Rapid prescreening; Sensitivity; Workload

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CYTOPATHOLOGY; CYTOTECHNOLOGIST; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; GYNECOLOGIC DISEASE; HUMAN; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; SCREENING; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SQUAMOUS CELL; WORKLOAD;

CYTOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VAGINAL SMEARS; WORKLOAD;

EID: 47049096900     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: 10970142     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.23497     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Yobs AR, Plott AE, Hicklin MD, et al. Retrospective evaluation of gynecologic cytodiagnosis II. Interlaboratory reproducibility as shown in rescreening large consecutive samples of reported cases. Acta Cytol. 1987;31:900-910.
2. Renshaw AA, Lezon KM, Wilbur DC. The human false-negative rate of rescreening in a 2 arm prospective clinical trial. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2001;93:106-110.
3. Keenlyside RA, Collins CL, Hancock JS, et al. Do proficiency test results correlate wiht the work performance of screeners who screen Papanicolaou smears? Am J Clin Pathol. 1999;112:769-776.
4. Renshaw AA. Measuring sensitivity in gynecologic cytology: a review. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2002;96:210-217.
5. NHSCSP. Achievable standards, benchmarks for reporting, and criteria for evaluating cervical cytopathology. Second edition including revised performance indicators. NHSCSP publication 1. Cytopathology. 2000;11:212-241.
6. Wiener HG, Klinkhamer K, Ulrich Schenck U, et al. European guidelines for cervical cancer screening: recommendations for cytology laboratories. Cytopathology. 2007;18:67-78.
7. Djemli A, Khetani K, Case B, Auger M. Correlation of cytotechnologists' parameter with their performance in rapid prescreening of Papanicolaou smears. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2006;108:306-310.
8. Djemli A, Khetani K, Auger M. Rapid prescreening of Pap smears: a practical and efficient quality control strategy. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2006;108:21-26.
9. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (public law 100-578). Fed Reg. 1990;55:9538-9574.
10. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care Financing Administration: Medicare, Medicaid and CLIA programs. Amended 1988. Fed Reg. 1992;57:493-1257.
11. Canadian Society of Cytology. Guidelines for Practice and Quality Assurance in Cytopathology, 2005. Available at: http://cap.medical.org/cytology. htm Accessed October 25, 2005.
12. Renshaw AA. Analysis of error in calculating the false-negative rate in the interpretation of cervicovaginal smears; the need to review abnormal cases. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 1997;81:264-271.
13. Renshaw AA, DiNisco SA, Minter LJ, Cibas ES. A more accurate measure of the false-negative rate of Papanicolaou smear screening is obtained by determining the false-negative rate of the rescreening process. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 1997;81:272-276.
14. Renshaw AA, Gould EW. Measuring errors in surgical pathology in real life practice: defining what does and does not matter. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007;127:144-152.