Reproducibility of colposcopy quality indicators—A survey among members of the European Federation for Colposcopy
Randrup, Tina Hovgaard; Leeson, Simon; Ciavattini, Andrea; Eldib, Ahmed; Grigore, Mihaela; van Haaften-de Jong, Anne Marie; Jariene, Kristina; Kesic, Vesna; Koiss, Róbert; Kotaniemi-Talonen, Laura; Quaas, Jens; Raud, Terje; Zodzika, Jana; Hammer, Anne (2024-08)
Randrup, Tina Hovgaard
Leeson, Simon
Ciavattini, Andrea
Eldib, Ahmed
Grigore, Mihaela
van Haaften-de Jong, Anne Marie
Jariene, Kristina
Kesic, Vesna
Koiss, Róbert
Kotaniemi-Talonen, Laura
Quaas, Jens
Raud, Terje
Zodzika, Jana
Hammer, Anne
08 / 2024
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:tuni-202408077972
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:tuni-202408077972
Kuvaus
Peer reviewed
Tiivistelmä
Introduction: Colposcopy is an important part of the diagnostic work-up of women with an abnormal cervical screening test as it is used to guide the collection of biopsies. Although quality assurance has been used in the evaluation of screening programs, not much is known about quality indicators for the diagnostics and treatment of screen-positive women. Therefore, the European Federation for Colposcopy developed quality indicators aiming to support colposcopy practice across Europe. We performed a survey of colposcopy cases to determine if the quality indicators are understandable, relevant, and reproducible. Material and Methods: We conducted a survey among all members of the European Federation for Colposcopy Quality and Standards Group from November 2022 to March 2023. Members were asked to collect information on a total of 17 quality indicators for 50 women who had been newly referred for colposcopy due to an abnormal screening test between January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2021. Results were reported descriptively. Results: We included data on 609 cases from 12 members across Europe. The majority of the quality indicators were either achieved or within reach of the agreed standard, often due to few countries with outlying data. One quality indicator had very low performance, although stratified results indicated that two countries had different clinical management of the patient type thereby skewing the results. In addition, discrepancies between the number of cases included in each quality indicator raised concerns regarding potential misunderstanding of the quality indicator and its objective. Conclusions: Quality indicators on colposcopy must be understandable to those collecting data, highlighting the importance of validating quality indicators before data collection.
Kokoelmat
- TUNICRIS-julkaisut [19796]