By FRANCESCA MOLD
The identities of laboratories said to have reported the same or fewer abnormal smears than former Gisborne pathologist Michael Bottrill will remain secret.
The chairwoman of a ministerial inquiry into cervical screening, Ailsa Duffy, QC, ruled yesterday that the names of laboratories contained in a 1994 document comparing smear-reporting
rates would be revealed only to the panel, lawyers and organisations with party status.
The ruling came as an international expert cast doubt on the way New Zealand health authorities have followed up laboratory slide misreading in Gisborne.
Scottish pathologist Euphemia McGoogan told the inquiry yesterday that she strongly believed that women at risk from slide misreading should have a new smear rather than relying on the mass-rescreening of archived samples which might be many years old and of poor quality.
"Why look back if you can look forward," she said.
"If we identify a population which has received a screening service of questionable quality in the past, a further high-quality smear test should be offered as soon as possible and a high-quality screening programme established for the future," she said.
Evidence from Dr McGoogan and other witnesses at the hearing may make yesterday's suppression pointless, as it now appears the 1994 document may be useless for those trying to accurately compare laboratory performance.
The inquiry heard the statistics could be skewed because they may contain multiple smears from women.
Doubt cast on the document's scientific value may extend to earlier evidence that five laboratories had a lesser abnormal smear reporting rate than Dr Bottrill.
If the results were skewed, the ranking of performance could be misleading.
The lawyer for women affected by slide misreading, Bruce Corkill, had called for the full version to be made available as it might help to compare laboratory results between regions with similar demographics.
However, he said yesterday that the document should be treated with "considerable caution."
Ms Duffy said she saw no point in making the full document available to the public, adding that the statistics were almost six years old and she would be concerned if that information were to reflect unfairly on laboratories - considering there could have been ownership changes.
The restriction was opposed by former Associate Health Minister Neil Kirton, representing the Women's Health Information Resource Trust at the inquiry.
He said it would be an "extraordinary event" to withhold the information.
However, counsel assisting the inquiry, Royden Hindle, said "experience" showed that the information might be reported with unfair comment attached.
He said there was also concern that some of the information was "sophisticated" and it was not clear whether it would be understood in the "public domain."
