The multidisciplinary colposcopy meeting: recommendations for future service provision and an analysis of clinical decision making
Article first published online: 6 JUL 2010
© 2010 The Authors Journal compilation © RCOG 2010 BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Volume 117, Issue 9, pages 1060–1066, August 2010
How to Cite
Palmer, J., Wales, K., Ellis, K., Dudding, N., Smith, J. and Tidy, J. (2010), The multidisciplinary colposcopy meeting: recommendations for future service provision and an analysis of clinical decision making. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 117: 1060–1066. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02651.x
- Issue published online: 6 JUL 2010
- Article first published online: 6 JUL 2010
- Accepted 26 May 2010.
- multidisciplinary team;
Please cite this paper as: Palmer J, Wales K, Ellis K, Dudding N, Smith J, Tidy J. The multidisciplinary colposcopy meeting: recommendations for future service provision and an analysis of clinical decision making. BJOG 2010;117:1060–1066.
Objective In 2004 the NHS Cervical Screening Programme (NHSCSP) recommended that multidisciplinary meetings should be incorporated into patient management. No data has been provided since then regarding its functionality or benefits. We aim to address this issue.
Design Retrospective review.
Setting Jessop Wing colposcopy multidisciplinary meeting (MDM), Sheffield, UK.
Population All women referred to the MDM from September 2003 to September 2009.
Methods Retrospective review of the colposcopy database (Sept 2003–Sept 2009), cross-referenced with multidisciplinary team (MDT) letters, patient notes and the hospital results reporting system. Baseline statistics were used for data analysis.
Main outcome measures Indications for MDT referral; concordance rates from cytopathology and histopathology review; concordance rates between MDT treatment decisions and final patient management.
Results A total of 535 cases were discussed at 62 MDT meetings during the allocated study period. Discrepancy between referral cytology and cervix punch biopsy was the most common referral (49%). Cytology and histology review concurred with the initial reports in 75.8 and 97.8% of cases, respectively; the MDT decision was concordant with the final patient management in 97% of cases. The main reason for discordance (67%) resulted from patient factors.
Conclusions When significant discrepancies exist between colposcopy, cytology and histopathology, then MDT discussion seems pertinent as MDT discussion can lead to the avoidance of over-treatment. To improve timeliness of treatment, MDT meetings should occur at least monthly. The results of each case discussion should be recorded in the patient case notes, the minutes of each meeting should be circulated to all MDT members and a letter describing MDT recommendations must be sent to the colposcopist responsible for patient care.