Assessment of Quality Indicators in Cytopathology – Measuring What Matters
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21276/apalm.3347Keywords:
Continuous improvement, Cytopathology, Quality Indicators, Quality in laboratoriesAbstract
Background: Laboratories play a crucial role in diagnosis and patient care. It is vital to assess, quantify, and improve the quality of laboratory functioning through continuous monitoring. This requires periodic evaluation of well-defined Quality Indicators (QI). The aim of this study was to evaluate and analyze QI in the department of cytopathology.
Materials and Methods: This retrospective descriptive study of one-year duration (1st July 2022 to 30th June 2023) was carried out in the Cytopathology section. Eleven QI were analyzed for all phases (pre-analytical, analytical, and post-analytical) of testing processes. The results were noted in terms of numbers, percentages, and ratios.
Results: In the pre-analytical phase, repeat FNACs were 11.5%, and the overall assessment of staining quality was found to be satisfactory. In the analytical phase, inconclusive diagnoses were 6.46%, positivity rates for the PAP test were 8.4%, ASC-US/SIL ratio was 2:1, and AUS: Malignant ratio in thyroid cytopathology was 5:1. The results of EQAS cycles were within consensus in 88% of cases, while discordance in cytopathology and histopathology correlation was noted in 3.33% of cases. In the post-analytical phase, the number of reports exceeding the defined TAT (turnaround time) was found to be 1.5%.
Conclusion: Continuous improvement of quality in laboratories requires monitoring in the form of QI. Assessment and analysis of QI is an effective tool to improve quality in cytopathology. Well-defined QI should be prepared for all aspects of laboratory work and periodically analyzed for monitoring and continuous improvement.
References
Sinha S, Das S, Kalyani R. Audit of quality indicators of cytology: An institutional study. Adv Hum Biol. 2023;13(1):124-9.
Doshi PR, Murgod PS, Jagadale K, Lakhe R, Mani NS. An analysis of internal quality indicators in department of cytopathology of a tertiary care hospital.
Plebani M, Astion ML, Barth JH, Chen W, de Oliveira Galoro CA, Escuer MI, et al. Harmonization of quality indicators in laboratory medicine. A preliminary consensus. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2014;52(7):951-8.
Plebani M, Sciacovelli L, Marinova M, Marcuccitti J, Chiozza ML. Quality indicators in laboratory medicine: a fundamental tool for quality and patient safety. Clin Biochem. 2013;46(13-14):1170-4.
Zhou H, Baloch ZW, Nayar R, Bizzarro T, Fadda G, Adhikariâ€Guragain D, et al. The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology (TBSRTC). Cancer Cytopathol. 2018;126(1):20-6.
Travers H. Quality assurance indicators in anatomic pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1990;114(11):1149-56.
Davey DD, Neal MH, Wilbur DC, Colgan TJ, Styer PE, Mody DR. Bethesda 2001 implementation and reporting rates: 2003 practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2004;128(11):1224-9.
Nygård JF, Skare GB, Thoresen SØ. The cervical cancer screening programme in Norway, 1992–2000: changes in Pap smear coverage and incidence of cervical cancer. J Med Screen. 2002;9(2):86-91.
Rajagopal P, Arundhathi S, Arun Babu S. Internal Quality Control Indicators in Cervical Smear Screening- Report From a Tertiary Care Center, India. J Clin Diagn Res. 2023. doi:10.7860/JCDR/2023/59811.17707.
Renshaw AA, Auger M, Birdsong G, Cibas ES, Henry M, Hughes JH, et al. ASC/SIL ratio for cytotechnologists: a survey of its utility in clinical practice. Diagn Cytopathol. 2010;38(3):180-3.
Chebib I, Rao RA, Wilbur DC, Tambouret RH. Using the ASC: SIL ratio, human papillomavirus, and interobserver variability to assess and monitor cytopathology fellow training performance. Cancer Cytopathol. 2013;121(11):638-43.
Catteau X, Simon P, Noël JC. Evaluation of the oncogenic human papillomavirus DNA test with liquid-based cytology in primary cervical cancer screening and the importance of the ASC/SIL ratio: a Belgian study. Int Scholarly Res Notices. 2014;2014.
Renshaw AA, Deschênes M, Auger M. ASC/SIL ratio for cytotechnologists: a surrogate marker of screening sensitivity. Am J Clin Pathol. 2009;131(6):776-81.
Gullo CE, Dami AL, Barbosa AP, Marques AM, Palmejani MA, Lima LG, et al. Results of a control quality strategy in cervical cytology. Einstein (Sao Paulo). 2012;10:86-91.
Jo VY, Stelow EB, Dustin SM, Hanley KZ. Malignancy risk for fine-needle aspiration of thyroid lesions according to the Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2010;134(3):450-6.
Kim SK, Hwang TS, Yoo YB, Han HS, Kim DL, Song KH, et al. Surgical results of thyroid nodules according to a management guideline based on the BRAFV600E mutation status. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011;96(3):658-64.
Renshaw AA. Should “atypical follicular cells†in thyroid fineâ€needle aspirates be subclassified? Cancer Cytopathol. 2010;118(4):186-9.
VanderLaan PA, Marqusee E, Krane JF. Clinical outcome for atypia of undetermined significance in thyroid fine-needle aspirations: should repeated FNA be the preferred initial approach? Am J Clin Pathol. 2011;135(5):770-5.
Krane JF, VanderLaan PA, Faquin WC, Renshaw AA. The atypia of undetermined significance/follicular lesion of undetermined significance: malignant ratio: a proposed performance measure for reporting in The Bethesda System for thyroid cytopathology. Cancer Cytopathol. 2012;120(2):111-6.
Gupta V, Negi G, Harsh M, Chandra H, Agarwal A, Shrivastava V. Utility of sample rejection rate as a quality indicator in developing countries. J Natl Accred Board Hosp Healthc Providers. 2015;2(1):30-.
Mehrotra A, Srivastava K, Bais P. An evaluation of laboratory specimen rejection rate in a North Indian setting-a cross-sectional study. IOSR J Dent Med Sci. 2013;7:35-9.
Clary KM, Davey DD, Naryshkin S, Austin RM, Thomas N, Chmara BA, et al. The role of monitoring interpretive rates, concordance between cytotechnologist and pathologist interpretations before sign-out, and turnaround time in gynecologic cytology quality assurance: findings from the College of American Pathologists Gynecologic Cytopathology Quality Consensus Conference working group 1. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013;137(2):164-74.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Khushbu Mehulkumar Shah, Sheetal D Kher, Utkarsh V Agrawal, Ritu R Singh, Vishal A Shah
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access at http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html).
