Changing digital and telecytology practices post COVID-19 comparing ASC survey results from 2016 to 2023.

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for digital pathology tools became more urgent. However, there needs to be more knowledge of the use in cytology. We aimed to evaluate current digital cytology practices and attitudes and compare the results with a pre-COVID-19 American Society of Cytopathology (ASC) survey. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen survey questions assessing current attitudes toward digital cytology were developed from a 2016 ASC Digital Pathology Survey. Ten new survey questions were also created to evaluate telecytology use. The survey was e-mailed to ASC members over 6 weeks in 2023. RESULTS: A total of 123 individuals responded (116 in 2016). Attitudes toward digital cytology were unchanged; most participants stated digital cytology is beneficial (87% 2023 versus 90% 2016). The percentage of individuals using digital cytology was unchanged (56% in 2016 and 2023). However, telecytology for rapid onsite assessment (ROSE) is now considered the best application (55% 2023 versus 31% 2016). Forty-three institutions reported using digital and telecytology tools; 40% made implementations after 2020; most did not feel that COVID-19 affected digital cytology (56%). Telecytology for ROSE is the most common application now (78%) compared with education (30%) in 2016. Limitations for implementing digital imaging in cytology included inability to focus (38%) and expense (33%). CONCLUSIONS: General attitudes toward digital tools by the cytology community have essentially remained the same between 2016 and now. However, telecytology for ROSE is increasingly being used, which supports a need for validation and competency guidelines.

Leading medical laboratory professionals toward change readiness: a correlational study.

BACKGROUND: To remain effective in the dynamic health care landscape, the laboratory must embrace the continuous improvement mindset to support a culture of change, and leadership must facilitate the change process, mitigating perceived barriers of change readiness in followers. METHODS: This quantitative study was designed to determine whether there is an association between leadership style (Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire [MLQ]) and change readiness (3-component model [TCM] commitment to change/Employee Commitment Survey, and whether leadership style predicts change readiness. Laboratory professionals (n = 718) were recruited through national societies to complete a combined MLQ-TCM survey instrument. Multivariate analysis of variance, Pearson correlations, and multiple regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: A significant correlation between leadership style and change readiness (transformational leadership [TL] and affective commitment to change, r(716) = .12, P = .002; passive-avoidant behavior and continuance commitment to change, r(716) = .25, P < .001) and between leadership style and leadership outcomes (TL and effectiveness, r(716) = .90, P < .001) was identified. Transformational leadership was a significant predictor of change readiness (ß = .17, P < .05). CONCLUSION: It is recommended that laboratory leaders use transformational leadership or situational leadership to improve followers' affective commitment to change and reduce followers' continuance commitment to change, thus improving commitment to continuous improvement. Leaders should also limit passive-avoidant behavior.