BACKGROUND: In clinical trials and epidemiologic studies, information on medical care utilization and health outcomes is often obtained from medical records. For multi-center studies, this information may be gathered by personnel at individual sites or by staff at a central coordinating center. We describe the process used to develop a HIPAA-compliant centralized process to collect medical record information for a large multi-center cancer screening trial. METHODS: The framework used to select, request, and track medical records incorporated a participant questionnaire with unique identifiers for each medical provider. De-identified information from the questionnaires was sent to the coordinating center indexed by these identifiers. The central coordinating center selected specific medical providers for abstraction and notified sites using these identifiers. The site personnel then linked the identifiers with medical provider information. Staff at the sites collected medical records and provided them for central abstraction. RESULTS: Medical records were successfully obtained and abstracted to ascertain information on outcomes and health care utilization in a study with over 18,000 study participants. Collection of records required for outcomes related to positive screening examinations and lung cancer diagnosis exceeded 90%. Collection of records for all aims was 87.32%. CONCLUSIONS: We designed a successful centralized medical record abstraction process that may be generalized to other research settings, including observational studies. The coordinating center received no identifying data. The process satisfied requirements imposed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and concerns of site institutional review boards with respect to protected health information.
BACKGROUND: In clinical trials and epidemiologic studies, information on medical care utilization and health outcomes is often obtained from medical records. For multi-center studies, this information may be gathered by personnel at individual sites or by staff at a central coordinating center. We describe the process used to develop a HIPAA-compliant centralized process to collect medical record information for a large multi-center cancer screening trial. METHODS: The framework used to select, request, and track medical records incorporated a participant questionnaire with unique identifiers for each medical provider. De-identified information from the questionnaires was sent to the coordinating center indexed by these identifiers. The central coordinating center selected specific medical providers for abstraction and notified sites using these identifiers. The site personnel then linked the identifiers with medical provider information. Staff at the sites collected medical records and provided them for central abstraction. RESULTS: Medical records were successfully obtained and abstracted to ascertain information on outcomes and health care utilization in a study with over 18,000 study participants. Collection of records required for outcomes related to positive screening examinations and lung cancer diagnosis exceeded 90%. Collection of records for all aims was 87.32%. CONCLUSIONS: We designed a successful centralized medical record abstraction process that may be generalized to other research settings, including observational studies. The coordinating center received no identifying data. The process satisfied requirements imposed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and concerns of site institutional review boards with respect to protected health information.
Authors: J David Curb; Anne McTiernan; Susan R Heckbert; Charles Kooperberg; Janet Stanford; Michael Nevitt; Karen C Johnson; Lori Proulx-Burns; Lisa Pastore; Michael Criqui; Sandra Daugherty Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Denise R Aberle; Christine D Berg; William C Black; Timothy R Church; Richard M Fagerstrom; Barbara Galen; Ilana F Gareen; Constantine Gatsonis; Jonathan Goldin; John K Gohagan; Bruce Hillman; Carl Jaffe; Barnett S Kramer; David Lynch; Pamela M Marcus; Mitchell Schnall; Daniel C Sullivan; Dorothy Sullivan; Carl J Zylak Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ann M Geiger; Sarah M Greene; Roy E Pardee; Gene Hart; Lisa J Herrinton; Ana M Macedo; Sharon Rolnick; Emily L Harris; Mary B Barton; Joann G Elmore; Suzanne W Fletcher Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: D G Ives; A L Fitzpatrick; D E Bild; B M Psaty; L H Kuller; P M Crowley; R G Cruise; S Theroux Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 1995-07 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Denise R Aberle; Amanda M Adams; Christine D Berg; William C Black; Jonathan D Clapp; Richard M Fagerstrom; Ilana F Gareen; Constantine Gatsonis; Pamela M Marcus; JoRean D Sicks Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Denise R Aberle; Amanda M Adams; Christine D Berg; Jonathan D Clapp; Kathy L Clingan; Ilana F Gareen; David A Lynch; Pamela M Marcus; Paul F Pinsky Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-11-22 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Zhao Chen; Charles Kooperberg; Mary B Pettinger; Tamsen Bassford; Jane A Cauley; Andrea Z LaCroix; Cora E Lewis; Simon Kipersztok; Carolyn Borne; Rebecca D Jackson Journal: Menopause Date: 2004 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: William C Black; Ilana F Gareen; Samir S Soneji; JoRean D Sicks; Emmett B Keeler; Denise R Aberle; Arash Naeim; Timothy R Church; Gerard A Silvestri; Jeremy Gorelick; Constantine Gatsonis Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 91.245