A comparison of screening times between the ThinPrep Imager and conventional cytology.
This small prospective study compared the time cytologists spend reviewing cervical cytology slides processed by the ThinPrep Imager (TPI) with screening times for conventional cytology slides (CS), to determine the effect, if any, of the TPI on productivity in our department. Some possible factors affecting TPI reading times, such as individual screener's experience with both specimen types, were also studied.We recorded the time taken to screen approximately 2,140 corresponding CS and TPI slides. The CS slides were screened by 22 cytologists, of whom 14 also read the TPI slides. The time taken to screen the slides at the conventional or review microscope was recorded, including any full reviews. Administrative duties including history checks and result entry were not included.Overall, the mean CS reading time was 5.6 minutes, (or 10.7 slides/hour) while the mean screening time for TPI was 2.9 minutes (20.6 slides/hour), a productivity increase of 92%. For the 14 cytologists who read both types of specimen, individual productivity increases ranged from 38.9 to 252%. Screener experience had little or no effect on TPI times, but slower CS readers were found to have greater increase in speed and productivity when using the TPI.This study has demonstrated a significant decrease in screening times for TPI when compared with CS (P = 0.001), resulting in significantly increased productivity (P = 0.001).
Boost
Terese
T
Cytology Department, Queensland Medical Laboratory, Queensland, Australia. terese.boost@qml.com.au
D003584:Cytological Techniques / Q000379:methods*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007753:Laboratories; D013995:Time; D002577:Uterine Cervical Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis*; D014626:Vaginal Smears / Q000379:methods*