Skip to main content

Digital

National Statistics
Publication, Part of

Cervical Screening Programme - England, 2005-2006

Official statistics, National statistics, Accredited official statistics
Publication Date:
Geographic Coverage:
England
Geographical Granularity:
Country, Regions, Local Authorities, Clinical Commissioning Groups
Date Range:
01 Apr 2005 to 31 Mar 2006

Summary

This bulletin presents information about the cervical screening programme in England and includes data about the call and re-call system, screening samples examined by pathology labs and referrals to colonoscopy and subsequent treatment and outcome.

Note: Revision (13 August 2010)

There is a systematic error in the calculation of repeat inadequate samples quoted in paragraph 2.3.1 of the 2008-09 Bulletin and similar figures from 2006 onwards, which has resulted in a slightly inflated percentage being published. This issue will be addressed in the 2009-10 publication and where year on year comparison occurs, historic data will be amended.

 

Note

There has been a small revision of table 19 within the Surrey & Sussex section as of 19/1/2007.

Highlights

At 10 August 2006

  • Over the last ten years the percentage of eligible women who have been screened at least once in the previous 5 years has been declining slightly to 79.5 per cent in 2006 compared with 80.3 per cent last year and 82 per cent in 1996
  • Coverage was 80 per cent or higher in 194 of the 303 Primary Care Organisations (PCOs). A drop compared to last year when 207 PCOs reached this level.

2005-06

  • 3.6 million women (all ages) were screened, the majority after a formal invitation from the screening programme, a similar amount to 2004/05
  • Whilst numbers of women invited (25-64) has dropped from 4.15 to 4.06 million in the last year, a decrease of 2.2 per cent, the numbers of women screened has risen from 3.28 to 3.36 million, an increase of 2.4 per cent
  • The percentage of inadequate samples has fallen from just over 9 per cent over the last few years, to the lowest figure recorded: 7.2 per cent, the main reason is likely to be the introduction of Liquid Based Cytology (LBC) as a method of taking samples.

Resources

Related Links

Last edited: 5 February 2019 12:08 pm