Diagnostic accuracy of virtual microscopy can equal that of glass slide microscopy. However, without good computer network connections, wide focal range and software that permits effortless navigation across virtual slides, cytologists are unlikely to be convinced of the utility of this technology for cytology screening and diagnosis.

The revised BSCC terminology for abnormal cervical cytologyThe BSCC terminology was originally published in 1986 and although highly successful, requires revision. Through a process of professional consensus and literature review this has been undertaken by the BSCC. The revision takes account of recent developments and improvements in understanding of morphology and disease process and is compatible with other terminologies in use elsewhere, whilst still maintaining a focus on practice in the UK cervical screening programmes.

Although rapid screening of negative and inadequate cervical smears is a quality assurance requirement for all UK laboratories, there has been little attempt to standardize the method and laboratories make use of a number of different techniques and times. The aim of this study was to assess the sensitivity of these various techniques by measuring their ability to pick out known false-negative smears. Completed questionnaires from 123 laboratories across England revealed that 52% of laboratories use a "step" technique, 19% use "turret", 15% use random paths and 34% attempt to rescreen the whole slide quickly. Twenty-two percent of laboratories use a mixture of techniques. Timings are also variable, with the majority of laboratories allowing screeners to review slides at a pace decided by themselves but usually between 1 and 2 min. The study involved 120 participants who performed a total of 24 000 rapid screens. The results showed that, of the 90 abnormal slides used in the study, 62 cases (69%) were identified as abnormal or needing review by more than 50% of participants. Overall rapid screening picked out 58% of high-grade squamous abnormalities, 59% of low-grade abnormalities and 72% of glandular lesions. Step screening performed best, followed by whole slide/random and then turret. One minute was the optimum time and there was a significant fall in performance once individuals attempted to rescreen large numbers (>50). The most significant finding was the marked variation in the performance of individuals using the same slide sets.

Rapid rescreening of all negative and inadequate smears is the quality control method of choice in the UK. The sensitivity of primary screening of laboratory and individual screeners are major indicators of screening quality and are dependent on the number of false negative smears found by rapid screening for their calculation. High sensitivity may indicate good quality primary screening or poor quality rapid review. Quantifiably high quality rapid rescreening is essential if these sensitivity figures are to be meaningful. A 12-month study was undertaken in routine practice using the prescreening mode to ascertain the sensitivity of rapid (partial) screening in our department. The final results of smears were compared with those of rapid prescreening. The calculated sensitivity ranged from 92-54% for high-grade abnormalities and 75-33% for all grades, revealing a wide range of performance between individual prescreeners. Rapid prescreening can identify individuals best suited to rapid screening in routine practice. By using these prescreeners only, the sensitivity of cervical screening could be raised. Rapid (partial) prescreening should be considered as the quality control method of choice.

Rapid rescreening of approximately 30% of all negative and inadequate consecutive smears was carried out over a 26-month period. Smears (n = 24,012) were rescreened using a x6.3 objective only. Two minutes were allowed for each slide. Thirty-nine smears were found to have been incorrectly diagnosed as negative, a rate of 0.16%. This can be compared with the previous 26 months during which the traditional 1 in 10 random rescreening of unsatisfactory and negative smears had been carried out at a routine pace and with an objective of x10. A total of 6866 smears were rescreened. Eleven were found to have been incorrectly diagnosed as negative, a rate of 0.16%. Rapid rescreening is as sensitive as 1 in 10 rescreening, and allows a greater proportion of smears to be rescreened. We propose rapid rescreening should replace the traditional 1 in 10 rescreening methods.