UK Breast Screening Programme: How Does it Reflect the Forrest Recommendations?

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Objective—: To compare the UK breast screening programme with the Forrest Report recommendations of 1986. Setting—: The UK breast screening programme. Methods—: A postal survey of 97 local breast screening programmes in the United Kingdom. The main outcome measures were the frequency of screening, the use of two view screening on incident screens, reading of screening mammograms, assessment procedures and visits, staffing levels, and the use of building and equipment. Results—: Eighty two (85%) of the questionnaires were completed and returned. All programmes screen every three years, as Forrest intended, with the exception of one health region which screens more often. The national policy is to use two views on incident screens where there is a clinical indication. None the less, 14% of programmes are using, or intending to use, two views on all women. Double reading of mammograms is not recommended in the United Kingdom outside Scotland, but is used by 88% of programmes. All programmes have access to the equipment required for the assessment techniques recommended by Forrest. Variation exists between programmes in the procedures women can expect to receive at their initial assessment visit and in the total number of assessment visits. Sixty eight per cent of programmes' breast screening budgets cover the staff required for a multidisciplinary team as denned by the Forrest Report. Ninety three per cent of screening programmes are organised around static sites, with 86% of these also using mobile vans. Conclusions—: The national programme is following recommendations about the frequency of screening, but there seems to be some divergence from policy as regards the use of double reading, two views at incident screening, and the multidisciplinary team covered by the programmes' breast screening budget. Further research is needed on the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of two view incidence screening, double reading, and non-radiologists as readers. Investigation is also needed of the costs and effects of the variation between programmes in the number of assessment visits a woman may have.