Objective. Multidisciplinary colposcopy clinicopathology correlation meetings are deemed to be an important aspect of colposcopic quality assurance and are often a focus of attention in colposcopy quality assurance peer-review assessments. Despite this, there are few data on such meetings detailing activity or providing benchmarks for audit.
Materials and Methods. A retrospective analysis of clinicopathology correlation meetings held during a 3-year period (2004-2006) at the University Hospital of North Staffordshire was performed.
Results. A total of 65 meetings were held on a 2 to 4 weekly basis. All meetings contained a representation from cytology, pathology, and colposcopy. A total of 518 cases were listed and 475 were discussed, representing 6.6% of the total patient attendances at the colposcopy clinic during the study period. The main indications for discussion were as follows: cytology/histology discrepancy (35%), cytology/colposcopy discrepancy (10%), management dilemma (25%), and invasive cancer review (18%). A small proportion of cases listed (8%) were not discussed because of administrative problems. Problems were encountered in the quality of documentation, inconsistencies in the recording of findings, conclusions, and management plans.
Conclusions. Multidisciplinary colposcopy pathology meetings provide a valuable data resource for recording and analyzing challenging areas in the clinical management of women with abnormal cervical cytology. However, such meetings are time and labor intensive both in terms of personnel and preparation. National guidelines need to be developed to guide clinicians on the frequency and standards required from such meetings.
Multidisciplinary colposcopy pathology meetings provide a valuable data resource for recording and analyzing challenging areas in the clinical management of women with abnormal cervical cytology.
1Academic Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital of North Staffordshire, UK, 2West Midlands Cervical Screening Quality Assurance Reference Centre, UK, and 3Department of Pathology, University Hospital of North Staffordshire, Staffordshire, UK
Reprint requests to: Charles W.E. Redman, FRCOG, FRCS, MD, Academic Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital of North Staffordshire, Newcastle Rd, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, ST4 6QG, UK. E-mail: Charles.Redman@uhns.nhs.uk