Analysis of inadequate cervical smears using Shewhart control charts

BackgroundInadequate cervical smears cannot be analysed, can cause distress to women, are a financial burden to the NHS and may lead to further unnecessary procedures being undertaken. Furthermore, the proportion of inadequate smears is known to vary widely amongst providers. This study investigates this variation using Shewhart's theory of variation and control charts, and suggests strategies for addressing this.MethodsCervical cytology data, from six laboratories, serving 100 general practices in a former UK Health Authority area were obtained for the years 2000 and 2001. Control charts of the proportion of inadequate smears were plotted for all general practices, for the six laboratories and for the practices stratified by laboratory. The relationship between proportion of inadequate smears and the proportion of negative, borderline, mild, moderate or severe dyskaryosis as well as the positive predictive value of a smear in each laboratory was also investigated.ResultsThere was wide variation in the proportion of inadequate smears with 23% of practices showing evidence of special cause variation and four of the six laboratories showing evidence of special cause variation.There was no evidence of a clinically important association between high rates of inadequate smears and better detection of dyskaryosis (R2 = 0.082).ConclusionsThe proportion of inadequate smears is influenced by two distinct sources of variation – general practices and cytology laboratories, which are classified by the control chart methodology as either being consistent with common or special cause variation. This guidance from the control chart methodology appears to be useful in delivering the aim of continual improvement.

[1]  Tom Marshall,et al.  Performance league tables: the NHS deserves better , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[2]  E. Johnson,et al.  Achievable standards, Benchmarks for reporting, and Criteria for evaluating cervical cytopathologySecond edition including revised performance indicators , 2000, Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology.

[3]  A. Zauberman,et al.  The new economics , 1965 .

[4]  Tom Marshall,et al.  Bristol, Shipman, and clinical governance: Shewhart's forgotten lessons , 2001, The Lancet.

[5]  L Burnett,et al.  Using Shewhart p control charts of external quality-assurance program data to monitor analytical performance of a clinical chemistry laboratory. , 1996, Clinical chemistry.

[6]  Parag A. Pathak,et al.  Massachusetts Institute of Technology , 1964, Nature.

[7]  W. Edwards Deming,et al.  Out of the Crisis , 1982 .

[8]  J C Benneyan,et al.  Statistical Quality Control Methods in Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, Part II: Chart Use, Statistical Properties, and Research Issues , 1998, Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology.

[9]  A. Herbert,et al.  Achievable standards, benchmarks for reporting and criteria for evaluating cervical cytopathology , 1995, Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology.

[10]  J C Benneyan,et al.  Statistical Quality Control Methods in Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, Part I Introduction and Basic Theory , 1998, Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology.

[11]  J Chilcott,et al.  Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: an updated rapid and systematic review and economic analysis. , 2004, Health technology assessment.

[12]  D. Spiegelhalter,et al.  Funnel plots for institutional comparison , 2002, Quality & safety in health care.