Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Canadian Family Physician logoLink to Canadian Family Physician
. 1997 Mar;43:503–508.

Quality improvement in family practice. Program for Pap smears.

P G Norton 1, P A Shaw 1, M A Murray 1
PMCID: PMC2255303  PMID: 9116522

Abstract

PROBLEM BEING ADDRESSED: With the increasing emphasis on quality improvement, we need programs for improving office practice. OBJECTIVE OF PROGRAM: To demonstrate a simple and inexpensive program that resulted in improvement in the quality of Papanicolaou smears in a family practice teaching clinic. The performance measure was the proportion of smears containing endocervical components. MAIN COMPONENTS OF PROGRAM: The program involved annual feedback on the performance of the physicians in the clinic. Feedback was given to physicians at a regular group meeting; brief discussion of the findings also occurred at that time. There were no other interventions. CONCLUSIONS: A program involving straightforward feedback and discussion for less than 1 hour contributed to a 7% improvement in the proportion of Pap smears with endocervical components. This "low tech" approach should be tested in other settings and with other procedures and treatments.

Full text

PDF
503

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Avorn J., Soumerai S. B. Improving drug-therapy decisions through educational outreach. A randomized controlled trial of academically based "detailing". N Engl J Med. 1983 Jun 16;308(24):1457–1463. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198306163082406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Berwick D. M. Controlling variation in health care: a consultation from Walter Shewhart. Med Care. 1991 Dec;29(12):1212–1225. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199112000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Curtis P., Skinner B., Varenholt J. J., Addison L., Resnick J., Kebede M. Papanicolaou smear quality assurance: providing feedback to physicians. J Fam Pract. 1993 Mar;36(3):309–312. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Elias A., Linthorst G., Bekker B., Vooijs P. G. The significance of endocervical cells in the diagnosis of cervical epithelial changes. Acta Cytol. 1983 May-Jun;27(3):225–229. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Gay J. D., Donaldson L. D., Goellner J. R. False-negative results in cervical cytologic studies. Acta Cytol. 1985 Nov-Dec;29(6):1043–1046. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Mitchell H., Medley G., Giles G. Cervical cancers diagnosed after negative results on cervical cytology: perspective in the 1980s. BMJ. 1990 Jun 23;300(6740):1622–1626. doi: 10.1136/bmj.300.6740.1622. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Mugford M., Banfield P., O'Hanlon M. Effects of feedback of information on clinical practice: a review. BMJ. 1991 Aug 17;303(6799):398–402. doi: 10.1136/bmj.303.6799.398. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Vooijs P. G., Elias A., van der Graaf Y., Veling S. Relationship between the diagnosis of epithelial abnormalities and the composition of cervical smears. Acta Cytol. 1985 May-Jun;29(3):323–328. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Canadian Family Physician are provided here courtesy of College of Family Physicians of Canada

RESOURCES