American journal of clinical pathology · 2025
Impact of the Genius Digital Diagnostics System on workflow and accuracy compared with the ThinPrep Imaging System for review of ThinPrep Papanicolaou tests.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Murphy Kathleen M, Weatherhead Kristina, Chenault Carrie, Nguyen Chinh, Sefcik Kari, Harrington Sarah, Johnson Kasey, Lemeshev Yan
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: In this study, we compared the workflow of the Genius Digital Diagnostics System (Hologic, Inc) with our current workflow based on the ThinPrep Imaging System (Hologic, Inc) to assess potential efficiencies associated with digitalization of Papanicolaou screening.
METHODS: Each step of the current workflow (glass slide movement and slide review) and the experimental workflow were documented. Substantial workflow efficiencies were associated with the reduction of glass slide movement observed with the experimental workflow of the Genius system compared with the ThinPrep system.
RESULTS: The ThinPrep-based workflow required more than 5 hours of hands-on time at specific synchronized times throughout the day, whereas the hands-on time of the experimental Genius Digital Diagnostics System was just over an hour and allowed glass movement at flexible times. In addition to these workflow efficiencies, the Genius Digital Diagnostics System resulted in much shorter review times (70.1 seconds) than the ThinPrep Imaging system (138.0 seconds) while maintaining similar agreement to the sign-out diagnosis.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that implementing a Genius Dx-based workflow may result in substantial efficiency gains, which can mitigate workforce shortages and improve turnaround time without compromising screening accuracy.
METHODS: Each step of the current workflow (glass slide movement and slide review) and the experimental workflow were documented. Substantial workflow efficiencies were associated with the reduction of glass slide movement observed with the experimental workflow of the Genius system compared with the ThinPrep system.
RESULTS: The ThinPrep-based workflow required more than 5 hours of hands-on time at specific synchronized times throughout the day, whereas the hands-on time of the experimental Genius Digital Diagnostics System was just over an hour and allowed glass movement at flexible times. In addition to these workflow efficiencies, the Genius Digital Diagnostics System resulted in much shorter review times (70.1 seconds) than the ThinPrep Imaging system (138.0 seconds) while maintaining similar agreement to the sign-out diagnosis.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that implementing a Genius Dx-based workflow may result in substantial efficiency gains, which can mitigate workforce shortages and improve turnaround time without compromising screening accuracy.