100% rapid (partial) rescreening for quality assurance.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficiency of two methods for routine quality assurance in gynecologic cytology: random rescreening of 10% of negative gynecologic smears and rapid rescreening of all negative gynecologic smears.


METHODS
All gynecologic smears considered to be negative or benign and diagnosed between November 1, 1996, and December 31, 1997, were rescreened using the rapid, partial rescreening technique. Results were compared to those of the 10% random rescreening method.


RESULTS
Comparing the 10% review of negatives to the rapid rescreening in two comparable periods of three months, the former required review by the supervisor of 160 cases in order to find a true false negative. With rapid rescreening, the supervisor had to review fewer than eight cases to find a true false negative. Also, rapid rescreening found about four times more true false negatives than random 10% review.


CONCLUSIONS
Rapid rescreening of all negative gynecologic smears proved more efficient than 10% random rescreening.
Lemay
C
C
Pathology Service, Centre hospitalier, l'Université Laval, Quebec, Canada.
Meisels
A
A
D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D005188:False Negative Reactions; D005260:Female; D006176:Gynecology / Q000191:economics / Q000592:standards; D017048:Health Care Costs; D006786:Hospitals, Urban / Q000191:economics / Q000592:standards; D006801:Humans; D007755:Laboratories, Hospital / Q000191:economics / Q000592:standards; D008403:Mass Screening / Q000191:economics / Q000592:standards*; D010338:Pathology, Clinical / Q000191:economics / Q000592:standards*; D011786:Quality Control; D014626:Vaginal Smears / Q000191:economics / Q000592:standards*