BACKGROUND: Healthcare accrediting organizations and insurers increasingly require reporting of clinical data, and cancer treatment is one area of enhanced scrutiny. OBJECTIVES: To compare rates of received versus reported adjuvant breast cancer treatments, and to assess barriers to measuring and reporting treatments to the tumor registry (TR) of a high-volume medical center with both hospital-based and community-based oncologists. RESEARCH DESIGN: We calculated rates of received treatments using data collected using chart abstraction (N=115) and compared these with rates of reported treatments from the TR (N=535). We conducted 31 indepth interviews with clinical and administrative informants. Asking about perceptions of the TR, current reporting methods, and reporting barriers. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using deductive and inductive methods. RESULTS: : Rates of reported versus received treatments were radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery 22% versus 84% (P < 0.0001); chemotherapy for stage 2 or 3: 17% versus 79% (P < 0.0001); hormonal therapy for stage 2 or 3: 1% versus 91% (P < 0.0001). Comparing community-based versus hospital-based oncologists' rates reported to the TR, we found the following differences: radiation therapy post-breast conserving surgery 12% versus 32% (< 0.0001); chemotherapy 8% versus 29% (< 0.0001); and hormonal therapy 0% versus 3% (0.09). We found 4 key barriers to measuring and reporting poor understanding about the TR, limited information technology capabilities, poor communication, and mistrust. CONCLUSIONS: : Efforts to improve cancer care quality by improved treatment reporting must overcome key barriers, especially those involving information exchange and mistrust. Communications between the TR and oncology practices must improve to facilitate better treatment measurement and reporting.
BACKGROUND: Healthcare accrediting organizations and insurers increasingly require reporting of clinical data, and cancer treatment is one area of enhanced scrutiny. OBJECTIVES: To compare rates of received versus reported adjuvant breast cancer treatments, and to assess barriers to measuring and reporting treatments to the tumor registry (TR) of a high-volume medical center with both hospital-based and community-based oncologists. RESEARCH DESIGN: We calculated rates of received treatments using data collected using chart abstraction (N=115) and compared these with rates of reported treatments from the TR (N=535). We conducted 31 indepth interviews with clinical and administrative informants. Asking about perceptions of the TR, current reporting methods, and reporting barriers. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using deductive and inductive methods. RESULTS: : Rates of reported versus received treatments were radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery 22% versus 84% (P < 0.0001); chemotherapy for stage 2 or 3: 17% versus 79% (P < 0.0001); hormonal therapy for stage 2 or 3: 1% versus 91% (P < 0.0001). Comparing community-based versus hospital-based oncologists' rates reported to the TR, we found the following differences: radiation therapy post-breast conserving surgery 12% versus 32% (< 0.0001); chemotherapy 8% versus 29% (< 0.0001); and hormonal therapy 0% versus 3% (0.09). We found 4 key barriers to measuring and reporting poor understanding about the TR, limited information technology capabilities, poor communication, and mistrust. CONCLUSIONS: : Efforts to improve cancer care quality by improved treatment reporting must overcome key barriers, especially those involving information exchange and mistrust. Communications between the TR and oncology practices must improve to facilitate better treatment measurement and reporting.
Authors: Jennifer L Malin; Katherine L Kahn; John Adams; Lorna Kwan; Marianne Laouri; Patricia A Ganz Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-06-05 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Pieter Van Herck; Delphine De Smedt; Lieven Annemans; Roy Remmen; Meredith B Rosenthal; Walter Sermeus Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2010-08-23 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Lu Zhang; Jessica King; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Mei-Chin Hsieh; Vivien W Chen; Qingzhao Yu; Elizabeth Fontham; Michelle Loch; Lori A Pollack; Tekeda Ferguson Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2018-11-08 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Allison W Kurian; Aya Mitani; Manisha Desai; Peter P Yu; Tina Seto; Susan C Weber; Cliff Olson; Pragati Kenkare; Scarlett L Gomez; Monique A de Bruin; Kathleen Horst; Jeffrey Belkora; Suepattra G May; Dominick L Frosch; Douglas W Blayney; Harold S Luft; Amar K Das Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-09-24 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Allison W Kurian; Daphne Y Lichtensztajn; Theresa H M Keegan; Rita W Leung; Sarah J Shema; Dawn L Hershman; Lawrence H Kushi; Laurel A Habel; Tatjana Kolevska; Bette J Caan; Scarlett L Gomez Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2012-11-09 Impact factor: 4.624