PubMedDate not supplied
ISSUES: Computerized technologies probably will revolutionize the field of gynecologic cytology in the next century. Such technologies will be useful in both training and evaluating proficiency. However, manual screening/review of gynecologic cytology preparations is the current "gold standard" for both training and assessment of proficiency. CONSENSUS POSITION: Training programs for cytotechnologists and pathologists should provide instruction and experience in new technologies, but their introduction may depend on the availability of equipment and staff. Advantages of digital images for training include standardization of teaching sets and interactive capabilities, allowing educational feedback. Computerized support/assistance devices aid in complete screening of the slide during training and provide feedback to cytologists on screening techniques. Liquid-based cytopreparatory instruments facilitate multiple glass slides for teaching or testing. Proficiency testing (PT) in cytology has similar quality assurance goals as in other areas of the laboratory, but the subjective nature of cytologic analysis poses many challenges for implementation. There is consensus that all cytology practitioners would like to know the proficiency of the laboratory. However, the majority question the value and validity of any large-scale formal testing programs. Locator and diagnostic skills are both critical in cytology, but assessment of each skill may occur in different ways using computerized technologies. Any type of assessment should provide educational feedback to participants. Psychometric issues in PT include the consideration of different types of validity, including face, content, construct and criterion related. The reliability or consistency of the testing event is also critical. A valid and reliable correlation between work performance and performance on a PT needs to be established. The goal is to ensure that PT will identify submarginal practitioners and that persons successful on PT are in fact competent. Any cytology PT program should also be considered in the context of other laboratory quality assurance tools and the entire cervical cancer screening program. Regulatory agencies should evaluate entire laboratory performance, while each laboratory director should assume primary responsibility for evaluating and documenting the competency and daily performance of each practicing cytologist. Professional scientific organizations should take the lead in recommending methods and standards of performance assessment. ONGOING ISSUES: A reliable method of correlating daily competency with results on PT is not yet established. Methods may evolve ever time using new technologies. The use of computerized techniques and images for assessment will require careful deliberation by experts as well as validation by practicing cytologists. Variables include diagnostic categories for testing, numbers of challenges per testing event, types of slide preparations and characteristics of the digital images. Availability of equipment and staff will affect the introduction of new technologies in different regions.