American society of cytopathology workload recommendations for automated pap test screening: Developed by the productivity and quality assurance in the era of automated screening task force

Diagnostic Cytopathology

Volumn 41, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 174-178

  Elsheikh, Tarik M ^a   Austin, R Marshall ^b   Chhieng, David F ^c   Miller, Fern S ^d   Moriarty, Ann T ^e   Renshaw, Andrew A ^f  

^a LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d Metropolitan Pathologists   (United States)

^e Ameripath Inc   (United States)

^f BAPTIST HOSPITAL OF MIAMI   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; CYTOTECHNOLOGIST; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; EPITHELIUM CELL; FINE NEEDLE ASPIRATION BIOPSY; GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE; HUMAN; MEDICAL SOCIETY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; SCREENING; WORKLOAD;

AUTOMATION, LABORATORY; QUALITY CONTROL; VAGINAL SMEARS; WORKLOAD;

EID: 84872615636     PISSN: 87551039     EISSN: 10970339     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/dc.22817     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. How Laboratorians Can Safely Calculate Workload for FDA-Approved Semi-Automated Gynecologic Cytology Screening Devices. http://www.fda.gov/ MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/TipsandArticlesonDeviceSafety/ucm220292. htm. 2010.
2. Elsheikh TM, Kirkpatrick JL, Fischer D, Herbert KD, Renshaw AA,. Does the time of day or weekday affect screening accuracy? A Pilot Correlation study with Cytotech Workload and Abnormal Rate Detection Utilizing the ThinPrep Imaging System. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2010; 118: 41-6.
3. NHSCSP publication No 14, January 2003. Laboratory organization, a guide for laboratories participating in the NHS cervical screening program. Available at www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/ceervical/publications/nhscsp14.pdf. (last accessed 1-4- 2012)
4. Cytology Benchmarkin working Group. Workload guidelines for cytotechnologists. http://www.cmlto.com/quality-assurance/MLT-practice- guidelines/default.asp?load=cytotechnologists www.cmlto.com/quality-assurance/ MLT-practice-guidelines/default.asp?load=cytotechnologists. 1997.
5. Becton Dickinson Co. BD FocalPoint GS Imaging System Package Insert. Becton Dickinson Co. 2009. http://www.bd.com/tripath/downloads/msds-pi/ focalpoint/focalpoint-gs-pi.pdf (last accessed 1-4- 2012)
6. Biscotti CV, Dawson AR, Dziura B,. Assisted primary screening using the automated ThinPrep Imaging System. Am J Clin Pathol 2005; 123: 281-287. (Pubitemid 40194092)
7. Operation summary and clinical information, ThinPrep imaging system. Cytyc corporation, Part No. 86093-001 Rev. E00, 2006. http://www.thinprep.com/ pdfs/thinprep-package-insert-imaging.pdf (last accessed 1-4- 2012).
8. Elsheikh T, Kirkpatrick JL, Cooper MK, Johnson ML, Hawkins AP, Renshaw AA,. Increasing Cytotech workload above 100 slides/day using the ThinPrep Imaging system leads to significantly worse screening accuracy. Cancer Cytopathol 2010; 118: 75-82.
9. Davey E, Irwig L, Macaskill P, Chan SF, D'Assuncao J, Richards A, et al. Cervical cytology reading times: a comparison between ThinPrep Imager and conventional methods. Diagn Cytopathol. 2007; 35 (9): 550-4. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db= PubMed&dopt=Citation&list-uids=17703458. (Pubitemid 47435617)
10. Lozano R,. Comparison of computer-assisted and manual screening of cervical cytology. Gynecol Oncol 2007; 104 (1): 134-8. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db= PubMed&dopt=Citation&list-uids=16959306. (Pubitemid 46054112)
11. Pacheco MC, Conley RC, Pennington DW, Bishop JW,. Concordance between original screening and final diagnosis using imager vs. manual screen of cervical liquid-based cytology slides. Acta Cytol 2008; 52 (5): 575-8. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db= PubMed&dopt=Citation&list-uids=18833820.
12. Papillo JL, St John TL, Leiman G,. Effectiveness of the ThinPrep Imaging System: clinical experience in a low risk screening population. Diagn Cytopathol 2008; 36 (3): 155-60. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query. fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list-uids=18232005. (Pubitemid 351312129)
13. Renshaw AA, Elsheikh TM,. Sensitivity and workload for manual and automated gynecologic screening: Best current estimates. Diagn Cytopathol, Diagn Cytopathol. 2011 Sep; 39 (9): 647-50. 2010 Oct 13. [Epub ahead of print].
14. Levi A, SChofield K, Elsheikh TM, Harigopal M, Chhieng D,. Effects of increasing cytotechnologist workload using the location guided imaging system FocalPoint GS on Surepath Pap tests. Cancer Cytopathol 2010; 118: 307; Abstract.
15. Miller F,. What is a reasonable and realistic workload limit in the age of image assisted pap testing? Current issues in cytology. 57th annual scientific meeting of the American Society of Cytopathology. November 16, 2009. http://www.cytopathology.org/website/staticdownload.asp?id=2975
16. Renshaw AA, Elsheikh TM,. HSIL, epithelial cell abnormality-adjusted workload, and the Thinprep imaging system. Diagn Cytopathol 2010 Nov 15. [Epub ahead of print].
17. Renshaw AA, Elsheikh TM,. Predicting screening sensitivity from workload in gynecologic cytology: A review. Diagn Cytopathol 39 (11): 832 -6. 2010 Nov 22. [Epub ahead of print].
18. Renshaw AA, Elsheikh TM,. Low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, epithelial cell abnormality-adjusted workload, and the thinprep imaging system. Diagn Cytopathol 2010 Dec 31. [Epub ahead of print].
19. Renshaw AA, Auger M, Birdsong G, Cibas ES, Henry M, Hughes JH, Moriarty A, Tench W, Wilbur DC, Elsheik TM,. ASC/SIL Ratio for cytotechnologists: A survey of its utility in clinical practice. Diagn Cytopathol 2010; 38: 180-183.