Article Preview
TopBackground
Laboratory automation has been propelled during the last decade by the advantages of higher productivity, cost-efficacy and the capacity of integration with modern instrumental equipment that has an internet connection (Brooker et al., 2019). Laboratory information systems provide better functionality through automation in parts of the inspection procedures, permitting the lab to achieve maximum efficiency (Brooker et al., 2019).
In the field of cytopathology, laboratory information systems have enabled cytotechnologists and cytolopathologists to achieve efficient, streamlined workflows, regulatory compliance, and superior reporting capabilities. Quality Control (QC) defines service’s quality, imparting to it the credibility needed for its intended purpose, while Quality Assurance (QA) activities measure the degree to which desired outcomes are successful (Archondakis et al., 2020). QC may be internal or external. QC in the field of cytology is mainly achieved by slide rescreening or by clinical-histological correlation of cytological diagnoses (Archondakis et al., 2009). Many slide rescreening procedures have been proposed for QA purposes, such as rapid reviewing of smears initially reported as negative or inadequate, rapid preview/prescreening of all smears, random rescreening, targeted rescreening of specific patient groups, seeding abnormal cases into the screening pools, retrospective rescreening of negative cytology specimens from patients with a current high-grade abnormality and automated rescreening of smears initially reported as negative (Archondakis et al., 2020). The laboratory managers are responsible for the selection of the most appropriate method for QA purposes, according to the specific needs of their laboratories (Vavoulidis et al., 2016).
The practice of diagnostic cytopathology performed on digital images is a novel process that can be used for obtaining expert opinions on severe cases from remote laboratories (telecytology) (Archondakis et al., 2009).