Objectives: Automated screening will become important due to an aging workforce, declining numbers of new cytotechnologists, and the need for increased screening sensitivity in the vaccine era, where high-grade abnormalities will decline. This study documents workload in gynecologic cytology throughput before and after the implementation of the BD FocalPoint™ Guided Screener (GS) System. Study Design: We collected daily screening data from 3 time periods: the 12 months prior to GS implementation, the 6 months immediately after implementation, and the ensuing 7–18 months after implementation. Data was tabulated at the individual and total laboratory levels. Results: In the 6-month period immediately following implementation, productivity increased in 3 of 5 cytotechnologists, as compared to the figures 12 months before implementation. The laboratory increased productivity slightly (+2.4%), with individual changes ranging from –6.9 to +14.7%. In the 7- to 18-month ‘mature’ period after implementation, productivity increased in all 5 cytotechnologists with an average of +15.4%. Individual increases ranged from +6.1 to +26.9%. Conclusions: Overall productivity increased in the period beyond 6 months, and this increase was eventually noted in all personnel. Increased productivity was associated with a short period of learning in which the magnitude of the effect was less than in the mature period.

1.
Gustafsson L, Pontén J, Zack M, Adami HO: International incidence rates of invasive cervical cancer after introduction of cytological screening. Cancer Causes Control 1997;8:755–763.
2.
Birdsong GG: Cytotechnology training at risk: cytotechnology school closures could lead to critical shortage – American Society of Cytopathology. http://pdffinder.net/CYTOTECHNOLOGY-TRAINING-ENDANGERED.html (accessed December 7, 2011).
3.
Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs: Cytotechnology accredited program list. 2009. http://www.caahep.org/Find-An-Accredited-Program/ (accessed September 18, 2012).
4.
American Society of Clinical Pathology: Board of Certification examination statistics 2010. http://www.ascp.org/PDF/BOC-PDFs/Statistics/ExaminationStatistics2010.aspx. 2011 (accessed September 18, 2012)
5.
Balachandran I, Friedlander M: Cytology workforce study: a report of current practices and trends in New York State. Am J Clin Pathol 2011;136:108–118.
6.
Saslow D, Solomon D, Lawson H, Killackey M, Kulasingam S, Cain J, Garcia F, Moriarty A, Waxman A, Wilbur D, Wentzensen N, Downs L, Spitzer M, Moscicki A, Franco E, Stoler M, Schiffman M, Castle P, Myers E: American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 2012;137:516–542.
7.
Brotherton JM, Fridman M, May CL, Chappell G, Saville AM, Gertig DM: Early effect of the HPV vaccination programme on cervical abnormalities in Victoria, Australia: an ecological study. Lancet 2011;377:2085–2092.
8.
Evans KK, Tambouret RH, Evered A, Wilbur DC, Wolfe JM: Prevalence of abnormalities influences cytologists’ error rates in screening for cervical cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2011;135:1557–1560.
9.
Patten SF, Lee JSJ, Wilbur DC, Bonfiglio TA, Colgan TJ, Richart RM, Cramer H, Moinuddin S: The AutoPap 300 QC System multicenter clinical trials for use in quality control rescreening of cervical smears. 1. A prospective intended use study. Cancer Cytopathol 1997;81:337–342.
10.
Patten SF, Lee JSJ, Wilbur DC, Bonfiglio TA, Colgan TJ, Richart RM, Cramer H, Moinuddin S: The AutoPap 300 QC System multicenter clinical trials for use in quality control rescreening of cervical smears. 2. Prospective and archival sensitivity studies. Cancer Cytopathol 1997;81:342–347.
11.
Wilbur DC, Prey MU, Miller WM, Pawlick GF, Colgan TJ: The AutoPap system for primary screening in cervical cytology: comparing the results of a prospective, intended-use study with routine manual practice. Acta Cytol 1998;42:214–220.
12.
Wilbur DC, Parter EM, Foti JA: Location-guided screening of liquid-based cervical cytology specimens: a potential improvement in accuracy and productivity is demonstrated in a preclinical feasibility trial. Am J Clin Pthol 2002;118:399–407.
13.
Biscotti CV, Dawson AE, Bziura B, Galup L, Darragh T, Rahemtulla A, Wills-Frank L: Assisted primary screening using the automated ThinPrep imaging system. Am J Clin Pathol 2005;123:281–287.
14.
Wilbur DC, Black-Schaffer WS, Luff RD, Abraham KP, Kemper C, Molina JT, Tench WD: The Becton Dickinson FocalPoint GS Imaging System: clinical trials demonstrate significantly improved sensitivity for the detection of important cervical lesions. Am J Clin Pathol 2009;132:767–776.
15.
Chivukula M, Mauser N, Dabbs DJ, White S, Dawson A, Underwood D, Austin RM: Relative impact of the ThinPrep imaging system (TIS) as a quality tool and a productivity tool in two academic medical centers (abstract). Cancer Cytopathol 2006:108:388.
16.
Food and Drug Administration: How laboratorians can safely calculate workload for FDA-approved semi-automated gynecologic cytology screening devices. 2010. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/TipsandArticlesonDeviceSafety/ucm220292.htm (accessed December 7, 2011).
17.
Elsheikh TM, Austin RM, Chhieng DF, Miller FS, Moriarty AT, Renshaw AA: American Society of Cytopathology workload recommendations for automated pap test screening: developed by the Productivity and Quality Assurance in the Era of Automated Screening Task Force. Diagn Cytopathol 2012, E-pub ahead of print.
18.
Renshaw AA, Elsheikh TM: Predicting screening sensitivity from workload in gynecologic cytology: a review. Diagn Cytopathol 2011;39:832–836.
19.
Renshaw AA, Elsheikh TM: Low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, epithelial cell abnormality-adjusted workload, and the ThinPrep imaging system. Diagn Cytopathol 2012;40:698–700.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.