Cellular Pathology User Survey 2024

Many thanks to our clinical team for completing the Cytology, Histology and Mortuary User Surveys for 2024.

For feedback from the Mortuary user survey, please contact the mortuary directly.

Cytology User Survey

A total of 11 survey responses were received (73% users)

Comments on overall support and contribution from the cytology team:

• Overall an excellent team to work with
• Great communication and response
• A great team, everyone is very helpful and very professional. A pleasure to work with.
• Always approachable, happy to help and efficient – thank you!

Actions to address feedback to clinical users:

You said: Sample preparations generally quite good but sometimes needlewashings, cytospins or MGG are suboptimal.

We will: Ensure any issues will be returned to the laboratory before reaching pathologist for reporting.

 

You said: Quality and content of reports good but reading through up to 3 different reports can be confusing; What is the purpose of double reporting by BMS from a quality point of view.

We will: Discuss with Beaker team the use of forms for trainee staff to remove from main reporting screen as pre/reporting by BMS is regarded as best practice.

 

You said: How can cytology department support consultants with regular updates and CPD; Would be good to see any FNA related audits as they happen.

We will: Provide cytology quarterly updates for medical staff and include any relevant audit feedback.

 

Histology user survey

A total of 8 survey responses were received.

Comments on overall support and contribution from the histology team:

• Quality is excellent in most of the cases.
• Can’t see how it could be better
• There is minor variation in quality of slides, but overall is excellent. If required the team is alert and turnaround time is outstanding
• Turn around time is excellent and if needed the  team prioritise  immunohistochemistry if required.
• Great lab. Skin excision descriptions and cut up superb
• Really good quality work with exceptional turnaround time. Lab staff receptive to feedback and seek opinion appropriately.  Adapt to new changes/guidelines.
• Lab staff are always very approachable and willing to sort any issues / answer questions. Brilliant team that I feel very lucky to be working with :)

Actions to address feedback from clinical users:

You said: Comments regarding section quality and suggested improvements to internal quality control process to eliminate problems such as scoring, missing edges or mountant problems.

We will: Continue to be vigilant during quality control and arrange re-cuts / repeats if the quality is suboptimal.

 

You said: There is sometimes a delay in extra blocks being requested and these being taken.

We will: Streamline the process for sampling extra blocks, to ensure these are prioritised.

 

You said: Several suggestions to ask the consultant pathologists for advice regarding small specimens requiring immunohistochemistry repeats, large gastrointestinal tumours at specimen opening and handling of head & neck mucosal biopsies.

We will: Ensure the laboratory team continue to seek advice from the specialist consultants as required.

 

You said: Sometimes incorrect booking in, with wrong specimen type or procedure, e.g.  Peritoneal biopsy for endometriosis get booked as endometrial biopsy.  Not sure if this takes place at clinical side at time of requesting or at our end.

We will: Remind the team to ensure the correct specimen protocol is selected at specimen reception, and to seek advice if unsure.