Review of invasive cervical cancers and uptake of disclosure of results: an audit of procedures and response.

OBJECTIVE: To audit the process and outcome of case reviews performed for invasive cervical cancers diagnosed between 2003 and 2007, and the timely disclosure of results to the respective patients. METHODS: Invasive cervical cancer reviews were performed on all cases of cervical cancer diagnosed between 2003 and 2007. Following the review, women were classified into two categories: a group who developed invasive cancer despite adherence to the screening programme or in whom a management or diagnostic decision was determined to have been a principal factor in the development of their disease (Group A), and a second group who either had never undergone a cervical smear or had been established defaulters from the screening programme (Group B). RESULTS: Ninety-seven of the 98 cases of invasive cervical cancer diagnosed in the 4-year study period were reviewed. Sixty of the 61 women in Group A were sent an invitation to discuss the results of their case review. Thirty-six (37%) were classified as Group B, and it was deemed neither appropriate nor possible to invite the patients for a review consultation. Of the women sent an invitation, only 24 (40%) chose to attend. CONCLUSION: A policy of selective invitation for the disclosure of invasive review results is feasible. Less than one-half of patients diagnosed with cervical cancer appear to want to know how they developed cervical cancer despite previously participating in a screening programme.

Complaints in gynaecology in England: an effective learning tool.

The highest increase of 13.4% in complaints registered in hospital and community services in England, was observed in 2009-2010, since the beginning of data collection from 1997. We observed that complaints in gynaecology have remained a comparatively less explored area against its obstetric counterpart. We investigated the increasing trend observed in our gynaecology services of a district general hospital, over a period of 5 years. All complaints registered were subjected to a retrospective qualitative analysis and causes or contributory factors were classified in a standardised way, as followed by the National Health Services (NHS) Information Centre. Inappropriate communication was responsible for 38.6% of complaints lodged, followed by administrative or organisational errors accounting for 33.9% of complaints. A significant proportion of complainants had recorded more than three sequential events, which is recognised as a potential opportunity to prevent escalation of complaints.

Implementing the national invasive cervical cancer audit: a local perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To monitor the effectiveness of the cervical screening programme and identify suboptimal management in order to improve patient care. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: A university hospital serving a population of 1 million people. POPULATION: All women diagnosed with a cervical cancer between 2003 and 2006. METHODS: Analysis of data from invasive cervical cancer reviews. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Categorisation of cervical cancer cases according to the Invasive Cervical Cancer Audit classification. RESULTS: Eighty-seven women were diagnosed with cervical cancer during the 3-year study period. The 'lapsed attender' group accounted for the greatest number of cases (30%), followed by screen detected (26%), interval cancers (13%), never attended (12%), lost to follow-up (10%) and never invited (9%). Women who had never attended for cytology presented with higher stage disease, stage-II or above, compared with the screen-detected cases: 60% were stage II or above, compared with 13.0%, Chi-square P = 0.018. The most frequently identified screening programme problem was patient compliance, which was determined to be the principle contributing factor in 39 cases (45%) and a secondary factor in a further ten cases. CONCLUSIONS: The categorisation of cervical cancer cases has the potential of yielding invaluable information for improving programme effectiveness. Patient compliance is the greatest challenge to the screening programme, and the need for regular screening and adherence to follow-up regimens needs to be reinforced in order to maximise the efficacy of the national screening programme.