Notes: Three hundred women attending colposcopy for the first time, following an abnormal cervical smear, were invited to fill in a questionnaire. This covered aspects of their understanding of the cervical smear test and the NHS Cervical Screening Programme (NHSCSP). In addition, it covered aspects of consent to the test. The response rate was 83%. Seventy percent thought that the NHSCSP is working well and 72% were aware that probably over 3000 cases of cervical cancer per year are being saved by the NHSCSP. However, 55% did not know that the death rate from cervical cancer is decreasing. 96% were aware that the main reason for a cervical smear is to prevent the development of cervical cancer, by finding early treatable abnormalities. Similarly, 94% were aware that the presence of abnormal cells on a cervical smear indicated a possible but not definitive indication of cervical precancer or cancer. Disappointingly, only 5% had seen the new NHSCSP information poster on the cervical smear test and only 44% had been given written information about the test. Consent for the test in 59% of women had been implied rather than expressed and 30% of women providing expressed consent had signed to that effect. In 42% of women, the smear taker or a doctor had failed to discuss the reason for having a cervical smear and had not explained about its advantages and limitations. In 72%, the smear taker or doctor had not explained that the cervical smear test can never be 100% accurate and that some laboratory errors are unavoidable. It is likely that women attending for colposcopy are a highly motivated cohort in relation to their understanding of the cervical smear test and the NHSCSP. Accordingly, understanding in the more general female population is likely to be considerably less. It would appear that women are often suboptimally informed to provide valid consent for the cervical smear test.

Notes: A Department of Health Executive Letter stated in 1998 that the principal function of external quality assessment (EQA) is educational. Subsequently, in England, it has no longer been acceptable to assess performance in gynaecological cytology by proficiency testing.This paper describes the EQA scheme in gynaecological cytology that has been run by the Trent Regional Gynaecological Pathology Quality Assurance Group for the NHS Cervical Screening Programme (NHSCSP) since 1998. It conforms as closely as possible to the recommendations published by the Department of Health Working Group on Histopathology EQA Accreditation, and replaced the national proficiency testing protocol.The educational value of the scheme is derived predominantly from a numerical score which provides confidential and quantitative feedback to all participants. Personal performance monitoring occurs as a secondary function. For primary screeners and checkers, this is based purely on the distinction between negative, inadequate and abnormal smears. For pathologists, personal performance monitoring also includes grading of abnormalities.The EQA has been designed so that all professional groups participate in a manner that closely mimics normal practice. Only slides that have achieved an 80% consensus amongst participants are used in the EQA.Substandard performance has been defined as those participants with scores falling below the 2.5%ile.The paper describes the EQA in detail and illustrates its use by means of the second round results.The EQA protocol developed within Trent and described in this paper has contributed to proposals contained in the current national EQA in gynaecological cytology for the NHSCSP. In particular this paper highlights the effectiveness of the scoring system contained within the Trent and National EQA protocols.

Notes: This is a statistical analysis of individual NHS Cervical Screening Programme laboratories screening smear ‘pick-up’ rates (defined here as percentage low grade and percentage high grade of total adequate smears for ages 20–64 years derived from general practitioners and community clinics) in relation to their nonscreening smear workload proportion (here defined as percentage nonscreening smears of total laboratory workload from all sources for all ages). This was achieved by the use of three one way anova models in order to receive a complete overview of the results. The models were applied to the following: (1) Laboratories with a total workload of less than 15 000 general practitioner (GP) and community clinic smears; (2) laboratories with a total workload of greater than 15000 GP and community smears and; (3) all laboratories (i.e. a combination of 1 and 2). The ‘test’ groups within each of these models comprised three subgroups based on the percentage of laboratory workload that consisted of smears from a nonscreening source. This figure ranged from 2.8% to 82.6%. The subgroups were divided so as to contain approximately the same number of laboratories in each one (172 laboratories in total, 42 with workload 〈 15000 and 130 with 〉 15000). The results show that laboratories high and low grade pick-up rates have a positively correlated but variable relationship with the proportion of their workload that consists of nonscreening smears. The results show significance overall at the 5% level for high grade and the 10% level for low grade (high grade at P= 0.045 and low grade at P= 0.071). Significance for laboratories viewing less than 15000 screening smears at the 1% level (high grade P= 0.006 and low grade P= 0.005). They show no significance, however, for laboratories viewing more than 15000 screening smears (high grade P= 0.457 and low grade P= 0.622). There is an intriguing possibility that a greater exposure to abnormal smears results in a greater tendency to detect them. The current data provides no evidence to support the NHS Executive's use of 15000 as a designated figure when quality monitoring and service provision becomes a specific issue. The closure or amalgamation of laboratories with workloads less than this would appear to have no scientific evidence base.

Notes: Melatonin acts via high affinity, G-protein coupled, seven transmembrane domain receptors. To precisely localize these receptors, antibodies were raised in chickens against a 15 amino acid fragment at the intracellular C-terminal region of the human melatonin receptor subtype mt1 (DSSNDVADRVKWKPS, mt1338−352). A chimeric form of the receptor with a hydrophilic Flag peptide (DYKDDDDK) in sequence with the extracellular N-terminus (Flag-mt1) was generated by polymerase chain reaction and expressed in mammalian cell lines. An IgY antibody (Y31), which gave high antibody titres by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, was used to localize Flag-mt1 in stably transfected cells by immunofluoresence. Flag-mt1 localization with Y31 was identical to that obtained with the M5 antibody directed against the Flag epitope and was mainly localized to the Golgi apparatus with some staining at the cell surface. No staining was seen in untransfected cells with either antibody. Y31 staining was abolished using antibody preabsorbed with peptide antigen. Y31 immunofluorescence in fetal human kidney sections was restricted to nephrogenic regions and matched that of 2-(125I)iodomelatonin binding and mt1 gene expression by in situ hybridization. Y31 was used to immunoprecipitate biotinylated membrane proteins from Flag-mt1 stably transfected and untransfected CHO cells. Western blotting of immunoprecipitated proteins revealed two major bands specific to stably transfected cells, one at 63 kDa and one at 86 kDa. The first band almost certainly corresponds to the glycosylated form of Flag-mt1 and the second band to receptor dimers. Thus, Y31 antibody is suitable for use in detecting the human mt1 receptor subtype in tissues and in transfected cells.