Literature DB >> 10682687

Reducing DCO registrations through electronic matching of cancer registry data and routine hospital data.

A M Pollock1, N Vickers.   

Abstract

The Thames Cancer Registry (TCR) has registered a high proportion of tumours from death certificate information only (DCO) registrations. This paper describes the results of a study set up to establish whether this proportion could be reduced by linking cancer registrations with routine hospital data from the Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) data set using computerized matching. A total of 67752 registrations were identified from the TCR. Matches were found in the HES data set for 66%. The proportion of cases retrieved for each tumour site was: 72% for colorectal cancer; 62% for cancer of the lung, trachea or bronchus; and 65% for female breast cancer. For all three tumour sites the proportion of matches found for patients registered from hospital case notes was higher than the proportion found for patients registered as DCOs (P < 0.0001 for all three tumour sites). Among matched DCO cases, 58% had at least one procedure recorded. DCO rates might be reduced by as much as 43% (from 17% of total registrations to less than 10%) for the three most common cancers if the method of electronic matching outlined here was used. Younger age groups, prognosis of tumour site and residence in North Thames region were all positively associated with successful matching (P < 0.0001 in all three cases). Many matched DCO cases were found to have had more than one admission for cancer. Among ordinary in-patient admissions, admissions to patients ratios of 1.5, 1.4 and 1.9 were found for colorectal, lung and breast cancers respectively. Of 5190 matched DCOs a procedure was recorded for 3013 (58%). HES data offer a useful aid to follow-up of case notes on patients identified to the registry by death certificates. Doubts about the completeness and accuracy of HES data mean case notes must remain the 'gold standard'.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10682687      PMCID: PMC2363307          DOI: 10.1054/bjoc.1999.0985

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Cancer        ISSN: 0007-0920            Impact factor:   7.640


  6 in total

1.  Death certificate reporting of colon and rectal cancers.

Authors:  W H Chow; S S Devesa
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1992-06-10       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Is the apparent rise in cancer mortality in the elderly real? Analysis of changes in certification and coding of cause of death in England and Wales, 1970-1990.

Authors:  A E Grulich; A J Swerdlow; I dos Santos Silva; V Beral
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  1995-10-09       Impact factor: 7.396

3.  Computerised linking of medical records: methodological guidelines.

Authors:  L Gill; M Goldacre; H Simmons; G Bettley; M Griffith
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1993-08       Impact factor: 3.710

4.  Accuracy of cancer death certificates and its effect on cancer mortality statistics.

Authors:  C Percy; E Stanek; L Gloeckler
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1981-03       Impact factor: 9.308

5.  Why are a quarter of all cancer deaths in south-east England registered by death certificate only? Factors related to death certificate only registrations in the Thames Cancer Registry between 1987 and 1989.

Authors:  A M Pollock; N Vickers
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 7.640

6.  The impact on colorectal cancer survival of cases registered by 'death certificate only': implications for national survival rates.

Authors:  A M Pollock; N Vickers
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 7.640

  6 in total
  1 in total

1.  In the absence of cancer registry data, is it sensible to assess incidence using hospital separation records?

Authors:  Moyra E Brackley; Margaret J Penning; Mary L Lesperance
Journal:  Int J Equity Health       Date:  2006-10-06
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.