Lack of Cancer Recurrence Data in Large Databases: A National Survey of Hospital Cancer Registries.
Cancer recurrence
Cancer registry
Journal
The Journal of surgical research
ISSN: 1095-8673
Titre abrégé: J Surg Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0376340
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2019
03 2019
Historique:
received:
18
04
2018
revised:
04
08
2018
accepted:
12
10
2018
entrez:
30
1
2019
pubmed:
30
1
2019
medline:
15
11
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Cancer recurrence information is not routinely collected by the US cancer registries. Prior research suggests hospital characteristics, staff qualifications, and chart access may be contributing factors but this has not been explored nationally. This study aimed to understand issues underlying poor collection of recurrence information and to identify targets for improvement. A survey was sent to Commission on Cancer hospitals to investigate reasons for variations in recurrence data collection, examine resources allocated, and assess coding variability. Descriptive and multivariate analyses were performed. Eight hundred and forty-five of 1417 surveys to Commission on Cancer hospitals were analyzed. Sixty-nine percent reported annually examining charts for recurrence ("investigating" hospitals). They more likely had experienced registrars (91% versus 84%, P < 0.05), integrated electronic medical records (75% versus 68%, P < 0.05) and chart access to in-network hospitals (80% versus 73%, P < 0.05). Thirty-seven percent reported ability to follow-up using medical records on <50% of patients. Reasons for noncollection included inability to accurately collect (37%), limited resources (44%), and low priority (18%). Odds of being an investigating hospital increased with the percentage of patients who could be followed up with medical records (90%-100% OR = 6.72). There were minimal differences among hospitals in registry caseload and resources. 79.5% reported that without prior recurrence documentation, they would code the patient as not having a recurrence, 8.8% would change all recurrence variables to "unknown," and 7.2% would leave them blank. Those tasked with collecting recurrence information report significant barriers concerning data access, data quality, adequate resources, and coding variability. A unified effort is needed to improve collection.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Cancer recurrence information is not routinely collected by the US cancer registries. Prior research suggests hospital characteristics, staff qualifications, and chart access may be contributing factors but this has not been explored nationally. This study aimed to understand issues underlying poor collection of recurrence information and to identify targets for improvement.
METHODS
A survey was sent to Commission on Cancer hospitals to investigate reasons for variations in recurrence data collection, examine resources allocated, and assess coding variability. Descriptive and multivariate analyses were performed.
RESULTS
Eight hundred and forty-five of 1417 surveys to Commission on Cancer hospitals were analyzed. Sixty-nine percent reported annually examining charts for recurrence ("investigating" hospitals). They more likely had experienced registrars (91% versus 84%, P < 0.05), integrated electronic medical records (75% versus 68%, P < 0.05) and chart access to in-network hospitals (80% versus 73%, P < 0.05). Thirty-seven percent reported ability to follow-up using medical records on <50% of patients. Reasons for noncollection included inability to accurately collect (37%), limited resources (44%), and low priority (18%). Odds of being an investigating hospital increased with the percentage of patients who could be followed up with medical records (90%-100% OR = 6.72). There were minimal differences among hospitals in registry caseload and resources. 79.5% reported that without prior recurrence documentation, they would code the patient as not having a recurrence, 8.8% would change all recurrence variables to "unknown," and 7.2% would leave them blank.
CONCLUSIONS
Those tasked with collecting recurrence information report significant barriers concerning data access, data quality, adequate resources, and coding variability. A unified effort is needed to improve collection.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30691842
pii: S0022-4804(18)30744-3
doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2018.10.020
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
551-559Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.