Ten cervical smear centres in the Bradford district are being targeted by health chiefs after a survey revealed test failure rates of up to four times the average.
Tests for signs of cervical cancer on women were examined from 140 centres in the area.
As many as four in ten women had to be recalled to one centre to have the tests taken again because the results of smears could not be analysed.
A total of ten centres had failure rates of more than double the national average of ten per cent.
But some centres had failure rates of just three per cent in the tests while the average failure rate for the whole district was 8.8 per cent.
Now the ten worst performing centres, generally ones which only carry out a small number of smears, are being targeted to give staff better training to improve the testing procedure.
Dr Dee Kyle, director of public health at Bradford Health Authority, said the performance of some centres was a cause of concern and a particular inconvenience for the women affected.
But it did not mean potential positive tests were not being picked up as efforts were made to make sure patients were re-tested.
A specialist nurse had already been appointed to improve the test standard and to encourage more women to come forward for tests which are carried out in GP surgeries, community clinics and hospitals.
"If somebody has to go back for a repeat test it is annoying and it is a nuisance but it is not the end of the world and we are very careful to make sure they do come back," she said.
"The average for the whole district is less than one in ten having to going back - which is within the national target for failures - and the vast majority are at the lower end. But we want to get it as low as we can.
"We have taken on a nurse specialist to go round and target both these small number of practices and to improve the overall rate of screening which is the most serious thing.
"It is of concern and we are working on it but we don't think Bradford is any worse than anywhere else.''
Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article