Disclosing the results of the invasive cervical cancer review to patients: a survey of lead colposcopists across England

Sherman, Susan M.; Nailer, Emma; Pearmain, Philippa; Todd, Richard W.; Redman, C. W. E.

doi:10.1111/cyt.12283

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sherman et al surveyed lead colposcopists regarding disclosing the results of invasive cervical cancer reviews to patients in 2015. 12 This study preceded Duty of Candour legislation but followed the introduction of an open disclosure policy. The authors found that despite NHS Cervical Screening Programme guidelines only 53% of all responding clinicians offered review meetings to patients and those that did offer meetings did not offer to all patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interval cancer audit and disclosure in cervical screening programmes: An international survey

Fitzpatrick

Mooney²,

Byrne³

et al. 2021

J Med Screen

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Legal cases involving the National Cervical Screening Programme in Ireland following non-disclosure of an interval cervical cancer audit prompted this first international comparative survey of interval cervical cancer audit. Methods A survey of 22 international population-based cervical screening programmes was conducted, to determine if they undertook audit of invasive cervical cancers. Those countries/regions that perform reviews were asked (i) how the audit was undertaken, including how the reviews were performed and how they controlled for retrospective bias, (ii) how women are informed of the audit process and how their consent is obtained, and (iii) how audit results were disclosed to patients. Results Seventeen countries/regions invited completed the survey (77%); 65% (11/17) have an audit process for interval cervical cancers. Five perform individual patient reviews; three perform programme-wide review, with calculation of interval cancer detection rates; one routinely performs programme-wide review with calculation of interval cancer detection rates and offers individual reviews, and one routinely performs local hospital-level reviews. In the remaining country/region, hospital laboratories audit cancers, with a national audit process for all cervical cancers. Varying methodologies for retrospective cytology review were employed; four include control samples, with a ratio varying from 1:1 to 1:2. Three conduct a blinded review. Most countries/regions do not discuss interval cancer audit with participants and 3/11 (27.3%) inform women when a cervical cancer audit takes place. Disclosure is limited and variable. Conclusion The responses suggest that there is no consistent approach to audit of interval cervical cancers or to disclosure of audit results.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%