Abstract
This chapter reviews The Doctors Company experience with medical liability claims involving the Pap smear. The historical factors leading to the explosive growth in Pap smear litigation are discussed and an expert medical panel’s analysis of the sources of error in the Pap smear are presented in detail. The panel’s recommendations for reducing the Pap smear’s inherent false-negative rate, thereby decreasing patient injury from “missed” cervical cancers and their precursors, are reviewed. Finally, new technologies and strategies that enhance the Pap test’s sensitivity (liquid-based cytology and DNA testing for human papillomavirus) are presented.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Jones B. Rescreening in gynecologic cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1995;119:1097–1103.
Janerich D, Hadjimichael O, Schwartz PE, et al. The screening histories of women with invasive cervical cancer in Connecticut. Am J Pub Health 1995;85:791–794.
NCI Consensus Conference, April 1996.
Troxel D. Risk Management Guidelines for Cervical Cytology. The Doctors Company, 1997.
Claver C, Masure M, Bory J-P, et al. Human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for the detection of high grade cervical lesions. Br J Cancer 2001;89:1616–1623.
Davey D, Zarbo R. Introduction and commentary, strategic science symposium on human papillomavirus testing. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2003;127:927–929.
Frable W. Litigation cells: definition and observations on a cell type in cervical vaginal smears not addressed by the Bethesda system. Diagn Cytopathol 1994;11:213–215.
The 2001 Bethesda System, consensus statement, terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002;287:2114–2118.
Bonfiglio T. Atypical squamous of undetermined significance: a continuing controversy. Cancer (cytopathol) 2002;96:125–127.
Boerner S, Katz R. On the origins of “atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance”: the evolution of a diagnostic term. Advances in Anatomic Path 1997;4:221–231.
Fitzgibbons P, Austin M. Expert review of histologic slides and Papanicolaou tests in the context of litigation or potential litigation. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000;124:1717–1719.
“Requests for Pathology Specimens”—a TDC Risk Management Guideline.
Wright T, Cox J, Massad L, et al. 2001 Consensus Guidelines for the Management of Women With Cervical Cytological Abnormalities. JAMA 2002;287:2120–2137.
Davey D, Nielsen M, Frable W, et al. Improving accuracy in gynecologic cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1993;117:1193–1198.
June 1996 CAP Conference on “Liability and Quality Issues in Cervicovaginal Cytology,” Seattle. The entire proceedings are published in Arch Pathol Lab Med 1997;121:205–342.
Schiffman M, Solomon D. Findings to date from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study (ALTS). Arch Pathol Lab Med 2003;127:946–949.
Lorincz A, Richart R. Human Papillomavirus DNA testing as an adjunct to cytology in cervical screening programs. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2003;127:959–967.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Humana Press Inc., Totowa, NJ
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Troxel, D.B. (2005). Pap Smear Litigation. In: Anderson, R.E. (eds) Medical Malpractice. Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59259-845-8_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59259-845-8_13
Publisher Name: Humana Press
Print ISBN: 978-1-58829-389-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-59259-845-8
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)