Cervical Screening Programme Beneficial

Minister of Health Wyatt Creech today reiterated the benefits of the National Cervical Screening Programme, and said it would be further strengthened by an extra $1.4 million to improve monitoring and information.

"Cervical screening is an effective way of reducing the number of deaths from cervical cancer.

"The extra $1.4 million to be spent by the Health Funding Authority will strengthen areas that need improving, and include new monitoring and evaluation.

"In addition the Ministry of Health this week signed the contract for an independent evaluation of the National Cervical Screening Programme to measure the effectiveness, quality and safety against international standards.

"This wider evaluation has come about following lengthy consultation with health professionals.

"The National Cervical Screening Programme is an important part of ensuring women stay healthy.

"The steady reduction in mortality from cervical cancer and the declining number of new cases reported each year is a measure of the programme's success.

"In the absence of an organised screening programme it was predicted that incidence and death rates could be expected to increase to the extent that up to 150 women could die from cervical cancer and up to 500 women could develop cervical cancer each year before the year 2000.

"The predicted increases have not happened and currently there are about 85 deaths from cervical cancer and around 230 cases annually. This reduction can be attributed in large measure to the screening programme."

Mr Creech also reinforced that the case of the Gisborne Pathologist had raised a number of issues he was concerned about and had sought further advice on.

"Pathologists, doctors, medical authorities and health officials can all learn lessons from the Gisborne case.

"I hope to shortly receive the advice I asked for a fortnight ago into the wider questions being raised about the identification of patients who may be at risk because of the actions of their doctors.

"A law change in mid 1996 requires Medical Practitioner Disciplinary Hearings to be open, and for the name of the doctor to be able to be published. This allows for the Medical Council to forward the name of the doctor to the relevant health authorities where there are concerns about patient care.

"I want to know from officials whether this process is working, and whether there is a gap under the old law for cases before mid 1996. I am seeking further advice on how best to ensure there are the mechanisms in place which allow patients to be followed up for further checks if that is required," Mr Creech concluded.