PURPOSE: The delivery of quality care to all patients with cancer has been named as a national priority within the American health care system. This article addresses the issues critical to case identification in cancer quality measurement and recommends possible strategies for accurately identifying a population of cancer patients. METHODS: We present the measurement issues associated with the basic challenges of case identification strategies for quality measurement. We discuss two basic challenges: (1) accurately identifying all patients with the defining characteristics (eg, a diagnosis of breast cancer), and (2) identifying only patients with these characteristics. RESULTS: Possible options for identifying newly diagnosed patients include using claims or other administrative data, cancer registries, cancer registry rapid case ascertainment, pathology laboratories, and physicians' offices. In the published literature, the sensitivity of claims varies from 75% to 95%, whereas central registries must have a 90% completeness rate to be certified. Most of these approaches, however, involve limitations to obtaining valid and comparable data across multiple settings. CONCLUSION: Using an existing data collection system staffed by skilled data collectors and managers should result in substantially more accurate and timely data. Registry officials and the government agencies that provide their support should be encouraged to adopt quality-of-care analyses as an important purpose of the registry system and to enhance their capacity to rapidly ascertain cases, collect the appropriate identifying information needed for patient contact, and verify stage at diagnosis. In order to meet the growing demand for timely, accurate information about quality of care, registries are likely to require additional support so they can enhance their capacity to rapidly ascertain cases, collect the appropriate identifying information needed for patient contact, and verify stage at diagnosis.
PURPOSE: The delivery of quality care to all patients with cancer has been named as a national priority within the American health care system. This article addresses the issues critical to case identification in cancer quality measurement and recommends possible strategies for accurately identifying a population of cancerpatients. METHODS: We present the measurement issues associated with the basic challenges of case identification strategies for quality measurement. We discuss two basic challenges: (1) accurately identifying all patients with the defining characteristics (eg, a diagnosis of breast cancer), and (2) identifying only patients with these characteristics. RESULTS: Possible options for identifying newly diagnosed patients include using claims or other administrative data, cancer registries, cancer registry rapid case ascertainment, pathology laboratories, and physicians' offices. In the published literature, the sensitivity of claims varies from 75% to 95%, whereas central registries must have a 90% completeness rate to be certified. Most of these approaches, however, involve limitations to obtaining valid and comparable data across multiple settings. CONCLUSION: Using an existing data collection system staffed by skilled data collectors and managers should result in substantially more accurate and timely data. Registry officials and the government agencies that provide their support should be encouraged to adopt quality-of-care analyses as an important purpose of the registry system and to enhance their capacity to rapidly ascertain cases, collect the appropriate identifying information needed for patient contact, and verify stage at diagnosis. In order to meet the growing demand for timely, accurate information about quality of care, registries are likely to require additional support so they can enhance their capacity to rapidly ascertain cases, collect the appropriate identifying information needed for patient contact, and verify stage at diagnosis.
Authors: Paul J Catalano; John Z Ayanian; Jane C Weeks; Katherine L Kahn; Mary Beth Landrum; Alan M Zaslavsky; Jeannette Lee; Jane Pendergast; David P Harrington Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Eva Grunfeld; Lynn Lethbridge; Ron Dewar; Beverley Lawson; Lawrence F Paszat; Grace Johnston; Frederick Burge; Paul McIntyre; Craig C Earle Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 4.762
Authors: Kenneth L Kehl; Mary Beth Landrum; Neeraj K Arora; Patricia A Ganz; Michelle van Ryn; Jennifer W Mack; Nancy L Keating Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Emily C Williams; Gwen T Lapham; Anna D Rubinsky; Laura J Chavez; Douglas Berger; Katharine A Bradley Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2017-07-19
Authors: Danielle E Rose; Diana M Tisnado; May L Tao; Jennifer L Malin; John L Adams; Patricia A Ganz; Katherine L Kahn Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2011-12-15 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: John Z Ayanian; Alan M Zaslavsky; Neeraj K Arora; Katherine L Kahn; Jennifer L Malin; Patricia A Ganz; Michelle van Ryn; Mark C Hornbrook; Catarina I Kiefe; Yulei He; Julie M Urmie; Jane C Weeks; David P Harrington Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-08-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Nancy L Keating; Mary Beth Landrum; Neeraj K Arora; Jennifer L Malin; Patricia A Ganz; Michelle van Ryn; Jane C Weeks Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-08-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Paul H Abrahamse; Kamaria L Lee; Lauren P Wallner; Nancy K Janz; Ann S Hamilton; Kevin C Ward; Monica Morrow; Allison W Kurian; Christopher R Friese; Sarah T Hawley; Steven J Katz Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-10-09 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Lisa C Clarke; Rudolph P Rull; John Z Ayanian; Robert Boer; Dennis Deapen; Dee W West; Katherine L Kahn Journal: Med Care Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Judy Y Chen; Jennifer Malin; Patricia A Ganz; Clifford Ko; Diana Tisnado; May Lin Tao; Martha Timmer; John L Adams; Katherine L Kahn Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-11-21 Impact factor: 5.128