BACKGROUND: Optimizing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening requires identification of unscreened individuals and tracking screening trends. A recent National Institutes of Health State of the Science Conference, "Enhancing Use and Quality of CRC Screening," cited a need for more population data sources for measurement of CRC screening, particularly for the medically underserved. Medical claims data (claims data) are created and maintained by many health systems to facilitate billing for services rendered and may be an efficient resource for identifying unscreened individuals. The aim of this study, conducted at a safety-net health system, was to determine whether CRC test use measured by claims data matches medical chart documentation. METHODS: The authors randomly selected 400 patients from a universe of 20,000 patients previously included in an analysis of CRC test use based on claims data 2002-2006 in Tarrant Co, TX. Claims data were compared with medical chart documentation by estimation of agreement and examination of test use over/underdocumentation. RESULTS: The authors found that agreement on test use was very good for fecal occult blood testing (κ = 0.83, 95% confidence interval: 0.75-0.90) and colonoscopy (κ = 0.91, 95% confidence interval: 0.85-0.96) and fair for sigmoidoscopy (κ = 0.39, 95% confidence interval: 0.28-0.49). Over- and underdocumentations of the 2 most commonly used CRC tests--colonoscopy and fecal occult blood testing--were rare. CONCLUSIONS: Use of claims data by health systems to measure CRC test use is a promising alternative to measuring CRC test use with medical chart review and may be used to identify unscreened patients for screening interventions and track screening trends over time.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Optimizing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening requires identification of unscreened individuals and tracking screening trends. A recent National Institutes of Health State of the Science Conference, "Enhancing Use and Quality of CRC Screening," cited a need for more population data sources for measurement of CRC screening, particularly for the medically underserved. Medical claims data (claims data) are created and maintained by many health systems to facilitate billing for services rendered and may be an efficient resource for identifying unscreened individuals. The aim of this study, conducted at a safety-net health system, was to determine whether CRC test use measured by claims data matches medical chart documentation. METHODS: The authors randomly selected 400 patients from a universe of 20,000 patients previously included in an analysis of CRC test use based on claims data 2002-2006 in Tarrant Co, TX. Claims data were compared with medical chart documentation by estimation of agreement and examination of test use over/underdocumentation. RESULTS: The authors found that agreement on test use was very good for fecal occult blood testing (κ = 0.83, 95% confidence interval: 0.75-0.90) and colonoscopy (κ = 0.91, 95% confidence interval: 0.85-0.96) and fair for sigmoidoscopy (κ = 0.39, 95% confidence interval: 0.28-0.49). Over- and underdocumentations of the 2 most commonly used CRC tests--colonoscopy and fecal occult blood testing--were rare. CONCLUSIONS: Use of claims data by health systems to measure CRC test use is a promising alternative to measuring CRC test use with medical chart review and may be used to identify unscreened patients for screening interventions and track screening trends over time.
Authors: Anna P Schenck; Carrie N Klabunde; Joan L Warren; Sharon Peacock; William W Davis; Sarah T Hawley; Michael Pignone; David F Ransohoff Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Catherine M DesRoches; Eric G Campbell; Sowmya R Rao; Karen Donelan; Timothy G Ferris; Ashish Jha; Rainu Kaushal; Douglas E Levy; Sara Rosenbaum; Alexandra E Shields; David Blumenthal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-06-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Anna P Schenck; Carrie N Klabunde; Joan L Warren; Sharon Peacock; William W Davis; Sarah T Hawley; Michael Pignone; David F Ransohoff Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-04-01 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Donald Steinwachs; Jennifer Dacey Allen; William Eric Barlow; R Paul Duncan; Leonard E Egede; Lawrence S Friedman; Nancy L Keating; Paula Kim; Judith R Lave; Thomas A LaVeist; Roberta B Ness; Robert J Optican; Beth A Virnig Journal: NIH Consens State Sci Statements Date: 2010-02-04
Authors: Bernard Levin; David A Lieberman; Beth McFarland; Kimberly S Andrews; Durado Brooks; John Bond; Chiranjeev Dash; Francis M Giardiello; Seth Glick; David Johnson; C Daniel Johnson; Theodore R Levin; Perry J Pickhardt; Douglas K Rex; Robert A Smith; Alan Thorson; Sidney J Winawer Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2008-02-08 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Ann G Zauber; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Amy B Knudsen; Janneke Wilschut; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Karen M Kuntz Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-10-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Sarah Bissig; Lamprini Syrogiannouli; Rémi Schneider; Kali Tal; Kevin Selby; Cinzia Del Giovane; Jean-Luc Bulliard; Oliver Senn; Cyril Ducros; Christian P R Schmid; Urs Marbet; Reto Auer Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2022-06-10
Authors: Clement K Gwede; Alexis M Koskan; Gwendolyn P Quinn; Stacy N Davis; Jamila Ealey; Rania Abdulla; Susan T Vadaparampil; Gloria Elliott; Diana Lopez; David Shibata; Richard G Roetzheim; Cathy D Meade Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Samir Gupta; Gloria D Coronado; Keith Argenbright; Alison T Brenner; Sheila F Castañeda; Jason A Dominitz; Beverly Green; Rachel B Issaka; Theodore R Levin; Daniel S Reuland; Lisa C Richardson; Douglas J Robertson; Amit G Singal; Michael Pignone Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2020-06-25 Impact factor: 286.130
Authors: Kenneth F Adams; Eric A Johnson; Jessica Chubak; Aruna Kamineni; Chyke A Doubeni; Diana S M Buist; Andrew E Williams; Sheila Weinmann; V Paul Doria-Rose; Carolyn M Rutter Journal: EGEMS (Wash DC) Date: 2015-05-18
Authors: Gloria D Coronado; Jennifer L Schneider; Beverly B Green; Jennifer K Coury; Malaika R Schwartz; Yogini Kulkarni-Sharma; Laura Mae Baldwin Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 7.327