BACKGROUND: Strategies to ensure timely diagnostic evaluation of hematuria are needed to reduce delays in bladder cancer diagnosis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of electronic trigger algorithms to detect delays in hematuria follow-up. METHODS: We developed a computerized trigger to detect delayed follow-up action on a urinalysis result with high-grade hematuria (>50 red blood cells/high powered field). The trigger scanned clinical data within a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) national data repository to identify all patient records with hematuria, then excluded those where follow-up was unnecessary (e.g., terminal illness) or where typical follow-up action was detected (e.g., cystoscopy). We manually reviewed a randomly-selected sample of flagged records to confirm delays. We performed a similar analysis of records with hematuria that were marked as not delayed (non-triggered). We used review findings to calculate trigger performance. RESULTS: Of 310,331 patients seen between 1/1/2012-12/31/2014, the trigger identified 5,857 patients who experienced high-grade hematuria, of which 495 experienced a delay. On manual review of 400 randomly-selected triggered records and 100 non-triggered records, the trigger achieved positive and negative predictive values of 58% and 97%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Triggers offer a promising method to detect delays in care of patients with high-grade hematuria and warrant further evaluation in clinical practice as a means to reduce delays in bladder cancer diagnosis.
BACKGROUND: Strategies to ensure timely diagnostic evaluation of hematuria are needed to reduce delays in bladder cancer diagnosis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of electronic trigger algorithms to detect delays in hematuria follow-up. METHODS: We developed a computerized trigger to detect delayed follow-up action on a urinalysis result with high-grade hematuria (>50 red blood cells/high powered field). The trigger scanned clinical data within a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) national data repository to identify all patient records with hematuria, then excluded those where follow-up was unnecessary (e.g., terminal illness) or where typical follow-up action was detected (e.g., cystoscopy). We manually reviewed a randomly-selected sample of flagged records to confirm delays. We performed a similar analysis of records with hematuria that were marked as not delayed (non-triggered). We used review findings to calculate trigger performance. RESULTS: Of 310,331 patients seen between 1/1/2012-12/31/2014, the trigger identified 5,857 patients who experienced high-grade hematuria, of which 495 experienced a delay. On manual review of 400 randomly-selected triggered records and 100 non-triggered records, the trigger achieved positive and negative predictive values of 58% and 97%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Triggers offer a promising method to detect delays in care of patients with high-grade hematuria and warrant further evaluation in clinical practice as a means to reduce delays in bladder cancer diagnosis.
Entities:
Keywords:
Electronic health records; data mining; delayed diagnosis; hematuria; medical informatics; monitoring and surveillance; triggers; urologic neoplasms
Authors: David C Classen; Roger Resar; Frances Griffin; Frank Federico; Terri Frankel; Nancy Kimmel; John C Whittington; Allan Frankel; Andrew Seger; Brent C James Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Rodney Davis; J Stephen Jones; Daniel A Barocas; Erik P Castle; Erich K Lang; Raymond J Leveillee; Edward M Messing; Scott D Miller; Andrew C Peterson; Thomas M T Turk; William Weitzel Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-10-24 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Alan M Nieder; Yair Lotan; Geoffrey R Nuss; Joshua P Langston; Sachin Vyas; Murugesan Manoharan; Mark S Soloway Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2008-12-20 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Daniel R Murphy; Archana Laxmisan; Brian A Reis; Eric J Thomas; Adol Esquivel; Samuel N Forjuoh; Rohan Parikh; Myrna M Khan; Hardeep Singh Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2013-07-19 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Daniel R Murphy; Louis Wu; Eric J Thomas; Samuel N Forjuoh; Ashley N D Meyer; Hardeep Singh Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-08-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jonathan Bergman; Katherine Neuhausen; Karim Chamie; Charles D Scales; Stacey Carter; Lorna Kwan; Steven E Lerman; William Aronson; Mark S Litwin Journal: Urology Date: 2013-10-05 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Jakub Dobruch; Siamak Daneshmand; Margit Fisch; Yair Lotan; Aidan P Noon; Matthew J Resnick; Shahrokh F Shariat; Alexandre R Zlotta; Stephen A Boorjian Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-09-04 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Michael Fenstermaker; Sujay Paknikar; Amarnath Rambhatla; Dana A Ohl; Ted A Skolarus; James M Dupree Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2017-09-18 Impact factor: 3.092
Authors: Yin Zhou; Fiona M Walter; Luke Mounce; Gary A Abel; Hardeep Singh; Willie Hamilton; Grant D Stewart; Georgios Lyratzopoulos Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2021-12-31 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Ashley N D Meyer; Hardeep Singh; Andrew J Zimolzak; Li Wei; Debra T Choi; Abigail D Marinez; Daniel R Murphy Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2022-08-08 Impact factor: 6.604
Authors: Daniel R Murphy; Ashley Nd Meyer; Dean F Sittig; Derek W Meeks; Eric J Thomas; Hardeep Singh Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2018-10-05 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Yin Zhou; Marije van Melle; Hardeep Singh; Willie Hamilton; Georgios Lyratzopoulos; Fiona M Walter Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-10-03 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Yin Zhou; Gary A Abel; William Hamilton; Hardeep Singh; Fiona M Walter; Georgios Lyratzopoulos Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2020-04-22 Impact factor: 2.984