Gynecologic cytology proficiency testing failures

What have we learned? Observations from the college of american pathologists gynecologic cytology proficiency testing program

Barbara S. Ducatman, Joel S. Bentz, Lisa A. Fatheree, Rhona Souers, Saula Ostrowski, Ann T. Moriarty, Michael Henry, Rodolfo Laucirica, Christine N. Booth, David C. Wilbur

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Context.-In 2006, the first gynecologic cytology proficiency tests were offered by the College of American Pathologists. Four years of data are now available using field-validated slides, including conventional and liquidbased Papanicolaou tests. Objective.-To characterize the pattern of error types that resulted in initial proficiency-test failure for cytotechnologists, primary screening pathologists, and secondary pathologists (those whose slides are prescreened by cytotechnologists). Design.-The results of 37 029 initial College of American Pathologists Papanicolaou proficiency tests were reviewed from 4 slide-set modules: conventional, Thin- Prep, SurePath, or a module containing all 3 slide types. Results.-During this 4-year period, cytotechnologists were least likely to fail the initial test (3.4%; 614 of 18 264), followed by secondary pathologists (ie, those reviewing slides already screened by a cytotechnologist) with a failure rate of 4.2%(728 of 17 346), and primary pathologists (ie, those screening their own slides) having the highest level of failure (13.7%; 194 of 1419). Failure rates have fallen for all 3 groups over time. Pathologists are graded more stringently on proficiency tests, and more primary pathologists would have passed if they had been graded as cytotechnologists. There were no significant differences among performances using different types of slide sets. False-positive errors were common for both primary (63.9%; 124 of 194 errors) and secondary (55.6%; 405 of 728 errors) pathologists, whereas automatic failures were most common for cytotechnologists (75.7%; 465 of 614 errors). Conclusions.-The failure rate is decreasing for all participants. The failures for primary pathologist screeners are due to false-positive responses. Primary screening cytotechnologists and secondary pathologists have automatic failures more often than do primary screening pathologists.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1442-1446
Number of pages5
JournalArchives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
Volume135
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2011

Fingerprint

Cell Biology
Papanicolaou Test
Pathologists

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Medical Laboratory Technology

Cite this

Gynecologic cytology proficiency testing failures : What have we learned? Observations from the college of american pathologists gynecologic cytology proficiency testing program. / Ducatman, Barbara S.; Bentz, Joel S.; Fatheree, Lisa A.; Souers, Rhona; Ostrowski, Saula; Moriarty, Ann T.; Henry, Michael; Laucirica, Rodolfo; Booth, Christine N.; Wilbur, David C.

In: Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Vol. 135, No. 11, 01.11.2011, p. 1442-1446.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ducatman, Barbara S. ; Bentz, Joel S. ; Fatheree, Lisa A. ; Souers, Rhona ; Ostrowski, Saula ; Moriarty, Ann T. ; Henry, Michael ; Laucirica, Rodolfo ; Booth, Christine N. ; Wilbur, David C. / Gynecologic cytology proficiency testing failures : What have we learned? Observations from the college of american pathologists gynecologic cytology proficiency testing program. In: Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. 2011 ; Vol. 135, No. 11. pp. 1442-1446.
@article{7b71dbef476441a7bc5c418ac59c331a,
title = "Gynecologic cytology proficiency testing failures: What have we learned? Observations from the college of american pathologists gynecologic cytology proficiency testing program",
abstract = "Context.-In 2006, the first gynecologic cytology proficiency tests were offered by the College of American Pathologists. Four years of data are now available using field-validated slides, including conventional and liquidbased Papanicolaou tests. Objective.-To characterize the pattern of error types that resulted in initial proficiency-test failure for cytotechnologists, primary screening pathologists, and secondary pathologists (those whose slides are prescreened by cytotechnologists). Design.-The results of 37 029 initial College of American Pathologists Papanicolaou proficiency tests were reviewed from 4 slide-set modules: conventional, Thin- Prep, SurePath, or a module containing all 3 slide types. Results.-During this 4-year period, cytotechnologists were least likely to fail the initial test (3.4{\%}; 614 of 18 264), followed by secondary pathologists (ie, those reviewing slides already screened by a cytotechnologist) with a failure rate of 4.2{\%}(728 of 17 346), and primary pathologists (ie, those screening their own slides) having the highest level of failure (13.7{\%}; 194 of 1419). Failure rates have fallen for all 3 groups over time. Pathologists are graded more stringently on proficiency tests, and more primary pathologists would have passed if they had been graded as cytotechnologists. There were no significant differences among performances using different types of slide sets. False-positive errors were common for both primary (63.9{\%}; 124 of 194 errors) and secondary (55.6{\%}; 405 of 728 errors) pathologists, whereas automatic failures were most common for cytotechnologists (75.7{\%}; 465 of 614 errors). Conclusions.-The failure rate is decreasing for all participants. The failures for primary pathologist screeners are due to false-positive responses. Primary screening cytotechnologists and secondary pathologists have automatic failures more often than do primary screening pathologists.",
author = "Ducatman, {Barbara S.} and Bentz, {Joel S.} and Fatheree, {Lisa A.} and Rhona Souers and Saula Ostrowski and Moriarty, {Ann T.} and Michael Henry and Rodolfo Laucirica and Booth, {Christine N.} and Wilbur, {David C.}",
year = "2011",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.5858/arpa.2010-0681-SA",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "135",
pages = "1442--1446",
journal = "Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine",
issn = "0003-9985",
publisher = "College of American Pathologists",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Gynecologic cytology proficiency testing failures

T2 - What have we learned? Observations from the college of american pathologists gynecologic cytology proficiency testing program

AU - Ducatman, Barbara S.

AU - Bentz, Joel S.

AU - Fatheree, Lisa A.

AU - Souers, Rhona

AU - Ostrowski, Saula

AU - Moriarty, Ann T.

AU - Henry, Michael

AU - Laucirica, Rodolfo

AU - Booth, Christine N.

AU - Wilbur, David C.

PY - 2011/11/1

Y1 - 2011/11/1

N2 - Context.-In 2006, the first gynecologic cytology proficiency tests were offered by the College of American Pathologists. Four years of data are now available using field-validated slides, including conventional and liquidbased Papanicolaou tests. Objective.-To characterize the pattern of error types that resulted in initial proficiency-test failure for cytotechnologists, primary screening pathologists, and secondary pathologists (those whose slides are prescreened by cytotechnologists). Design.-The results of 37 029 initial College of American Pathologists Papanicolaou proficiency tests were reviewed from 4 slide-set modules: conventional, Thin- Prep, SurePath, or a module containing all 3 slide types. Results.-During this 4-year period, cytotechnologists were least likely to fail the initial test (3.4%; 614 of 18 264), followed by secondary pathologists (ie, those reviewing slides already screened by a cytotechnologist) with a failure rate of 4.2%(728 of 17 346), and primary pathologists (ie, those screening their own slides) having the highest level of failure (13.7%; 194 of 1419). Failure rates have fallen for all 3 groups over time. Pathologists are graded more stringently on proficiency tests, and more primary pathologists would have passed if they had been graded as cytotechnologists. There were no significant differences among performances using different types of slide sets. False-positive errors were common for both primary (63.9%; 124 of 194 errors) and secondary (55.6%; 405 of 728 errors) pathologists, whereas automatic failures were most common for cytotechnologists (75.7%; 465 of 614 errors). Conclusions.-The failure rate is decreasing for all participants. The failures for primary pathologist screeners are due to false-positive responses. Primary screening cytotechnologists and secondary pathologists have automatic failures more often than do primary screening pathologists.

AB - Context.-In 2006, the first gynecologic cytology proficiency tests were offered by the College of American Pathologists. Four years of data are now available using field-validated slides, including conventional and liquidbased Papanicolaou tests. Objective.-To characterize the pattern of error types that resulted in initial proficiency-test failure for cytotechnologists, primary screening pathologists, and secondary pathologists (those whose slides are prescreened by cytotechnologists). Design.-The results of 37 029 initial College of American Pathologists Papanicolaou proficiency tests were reviewed from 4 slide-set modules: conventional, Thin- Prep, SurePath, or a module containing all 3 slide types. Results.-During this 4-year period, cytotechnologists were least likely to fail the initial test (3.4%; 614 of 18 264), followed by secondary pathologists (ie, those reviewing slides already screened by a cytotechnologist) with a failure rate of 4.2%(728 of 17 346), and primary pathologists (ie, those screening their own slides) having the highest level of failure (13.7%; 194 of 1419). Failure rates have fallen for all 3 groups over time. Pathologists are graded more stringently on proficiency tests, and more primary pathologists would have passed if they had been graded as cytotechnologists. There were no significant differences among performances using different types of slide sets. False-positive errors were common for both primary (63.9%; 124 of 194 errors) and secondary (55.6%; 405 of 728 errors) pathologists, whereas automatic failures were most common for cytotechnologists (75.7%; 465 of 614 errors). Conclusions.-The failure rate is decreasing for all participants. The failures for primary pathologist screeners are due to false-positive responses. Primary screening cytotechnologists and secondary pathologists have automatic failures more often than do primary screening pathologists.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=82555205425&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=82555205425&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5858/arpa.2010-0681-SA

DO - 10.5858/arpa.2010-0681-SA

M3 - Article

VL - 135

SP - 1442

EP - 1446

JO - Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

JF - Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

SN - 0003-9985

IS - 11

ER -