Implementing the national invasive cervical cancer audit: a local perspective

Abstract

The categorisation of cervical cancer cases has the potential of yielding invaluable information for improving programme effectiveness. Patient compliance is the greatest challenge to the screening programme, and the need for regular screening and adherence to follow-up regimens needs to be reinforced in order to maximise the efficacy of the national screening programme.

The invasive cervical cancer review: psychological issues surrounding disclosure

“…While patient compliance is a major contributing factor to the occurrence of cervical cancer, many other problems may play a significant role. Of the 75 women diagnosed with cervical cancer in North Staffordshire who had at least one cytology test taken in the past or at the point of diagnosis, cytological under‐call occurred in 30% of cases and was deemed to be the principle contributing factor in nearly 20% of the cases . While NHS cervical screening programme (NHSCSP) guidance requires that women diagnosed with cervical cancer are offered the findings of a review of their cervical screening history, anecdotal evidence suggests that this does not happen in all NHS Trusts.…”

The NHS cervical screening programme audit of invasive cervical cancers: who benefits?

“…The experience of undertaking this exercise at the University Hospital of North Staffordshire (UHNS) has recently been reviewed. 5 The data confirmed that, although most women who developed invasive cervical cancer had had a smear at some point in the past, noncompliance was the principle contributing factor in nearly half of women, with lapsed attenders being the largest of the classification groups. The majority of these women were between 30 and 39 years of age, in keeping with the fall in screening coverage seen regionally in that age group over the past 10 years in the West Midlands.…”

Review of invasive cervical cancers and uptake of disclosure of results: an audit of procedures and response

“…The multidisciplinary team reviewing the cases consisted of a consultant gynaecological oncologist (who was also the lead colposcopist), a consultant pathologist with a specialist interest in gynaecological oncology and a senior biomedical scientist in cytology. Reviews were conducted 9 and document detailing the findings and conclusions of the review was generated which was discussed by the full multidisciplinary team at a colposcopy clincopathology correlation meeting before approval 10 . A copy of the summary document was sent to the regional screening coordinator, the trust’s risk manager, the patient’s consultant gynaecologist, general practitioner and all the consultant pathologists working in the gynaecological oncology department.…”