PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 1923214

A quality-control program for colposcopic practice.

Abstract

Quality control is accepted as an integral part of the cytology laboratory's activities. However, provision of similar safeguards for colposcopic practice in assessing patients with abnormal cervical cytology has been an elusive problem. This report describes the quality-control program for colposcopy that is used province-wide in British Columbia for 21 hospital-based clinics staffed by 35 colposcopists. Copies of the results of all colposcopic examinations performed are sent to the Central Cytology Laboratory where the program is coordinated and the data are collated, analyzed, and evaluated. These data are used to set standards against which each colposcopist's performance and activity can be measured. One of the quality-control indicators used is a comparison between the colposcopic impression of the lesion and the corresponding direct biopsy diagnosis. Correlation within one histologic degree occurred in 86% of patients examined; this information was used to set a performance standard of 80% as the quality-control index for this particular indicator. Three colposcopists had scores below this standard. Comparisons were also made between presenting cytology, directed biopsy results, initial colposcopic impression, and final colposcopic evaluation (the clinical working diagnosis). The other major aspect of the quality-control program consists of an analysis of all cases of diagnosed invasive cervical cancer in the province in a given year to determine whether any colposcopically related errors occurred in the investigation and management of these cases. This system helps to identify individuals who may benefit from additional training.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J L Benedet, G H Anderson, J P Matisic, D M Miller. 1991. A quality-control program for colposcopic practice.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1923214/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Nephropathology consultation via digitized images.

Investigations into a digitized image communications system were prompted by a need to bring expert consultation to physicians in community practice. Pathologists desired the capability to concomitantly view, annotate, and discuss images with referring physicians at distant sites. Methods included evaluation of the human and procedural domain into which the system was to be integrated. The GDCN computer consultation system has the consultant nephropathologist first evaluate the processed biopsy slides, digitize representative images, transmit them with the diagnosis to referring nephrologist, and, finally, conduct an interactive consultation and review of the biopsy and case. Image resolution and compression variables must be set for each individual medical consulting application. For the GDCN, it was found that the 640 x 496 x unlimited color with compression ratios not exceeding 1:32 are acceptable. An obvious improvement of this computerized system over the noncomputerized review sessions is the ability to immediately share and discuss a new image that had not been previously sent. In the old noncomputerized consultation, only images that had been mailed could be discussed. The computerized sessions allow transmission (10 sec) of a new image that the consultation might demand. The computerized sessions also provide the ability to show the referring nephrologist an area of biopsy interest that the pathologist had not previously transmitted. Biopsy slides can be viewed during the consultation, an area digitized, and that image transmitted to the nephrologist during the consultation. Hardware and costs for the sending station were: [table: see text] This system far exceeds the requirements for this particular application; however, it is sufficient to support future, higher-technology computer applications. If necessary, this same system could be used with a less expensive computer, a less expensive camera, software compression, and a single monitor. These alterations could lessen the expenditures by some $8000 and result in a total cost of $10,000. Hardware and costs for the receiving station were: [table: see text] Cost of the receiving station could be reduced by using a less expensive computer and a single monitor system, thereby saving up to $5000 and resulting in a total cost of $7,400. DCCEC and GDCN have elected to use the more expensive, user-friendly and more rapid image transmission system SEND-->IT, rather than the less expensive system mainly because of experience with incorporating the system into the daily activities of the GDCN. SEND-->IT best met the essentials for GDCN.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Biopsy