COMPUTER ASSISTED INTERPRETATION OF CERVICAL CYTOLOGY
- The type of instrumentation used should be provided in the report.
- Data generated from screening devices that are not intended for patient care, but may be used for internal laboratory quality assurance, should not be included in the report.
- Whether or not the specimen was successfully processed by the device, regardless of the result, should be reported.
- If the automated screening provides an interpretation of the specimen that replaces manual screening/review, then this result and any adequacy data derived from the computer assessment should be stated in the report.
- If there is no manual screening, i.e. automated primary screening only, then, in general, no name should appear on the report that can be misconstrued as a person who examined the slide.
- Results generated by the instrument must be reviewed and verified by a laboratorian with appropriate training and authorization. A record of who performed this data verification should be maintained as an internal laboratory record.
- If a specimen is manually screened or reviewed following automated screening, then the results of both methods must be compared and any discrepancy reconciled. The name of anyone who examines a cervical cytology slide for the final report should be documented.
These recommendations are not intended to be all-inclusive; additional relevant information may be included in the report depending on the specific type of device employed.
Sample reports: Available in Bethesda Atlas ( )