Michael K Gould1, Lori C Sakoda2, Debra P Ritzwoller3, Michael J Simoff4, Christine M Neslund-Dudas5, Lawrence H Kushi2, Lisa Carter-Harris6, Heather Spencer Feigelson3, George Minowada7, V Paul Doria-Rose8. 1. 1 Department of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, California. 2. 2 Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California. 3. 3 Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Denver, Colorado. 4. 4 Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan. 5. 5 Department of Public Health Sciences, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan. 6. 6 School of Nursing, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana. 7. 7 Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Vallejo, California; and. 8. 8 Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Lung cancer screening registries can monitor screening outcomes and improve quality of care. OBJECTIVES: To describe nascent lung cancer screening programs and share efficient data collection approaches for mandatory registry reporting in four integrated health care systems of the National Cancer Institute-funded Cancer Research Network. METHODS: We documented the distinctive characteristics of lung cancer screening programs, and we provide examples of strategies to facilitate data collection and describe early challenges and possible solutions. In addition, we report preliminary data on use and outcomes of screening with low-dose computed tomography at each of the participating sites. RESULTS: Programs varied in approaches to confirming patient eligibility, ordering screening low-dose computed tomographic scans, and coordinating follow-up care. Most data elements were collected from structured fields in electronic health records, but sites also made use of standardized order templates, local procedure codes, identifiable hashtags in radiology reports, and natural language processing algorithms. Common challenges included incomplete documentation of tobacco smoking history, difficulty distinguishing between scans performed for screening versus diagnosis or surveillance, and variable adherence with use of standardized templates. Adherence with eligibility criteria as well as the accuracy and completeness of data collection appeared to depend at least partly on availability of personnel and other resources to support the successful implementation of screening. CONCLUSIONS: To maximize the effectiveness of lung cancer screening, minimize the burden of data collection, and facilitate research and quality improvement, clinical workflow and information technology should be purposefully designed to ensure that patients meet eligibility criteria and receive appropriate follow-up testing.
RATIONALE: Lung cancer screening registries can monitor screening outcomes and improve quality of care. OBJECTIVES: To describe nascent lung cancer screening programs and share efficient data collection approaches for mandatory registry reporting in four integrated health care systems of the National Cancer Institute-funded Cancer Research Network. METHODS: We documented the distinctive characteristics of lung cancer screening programs, and we provide examples of strategies to facilitate data collection and describe early challenges and possible solutions. In addition, we report preliminary data on use and outcomes of screening with low-dose computed tomography at each of the participating sites. RESULTS: Programs varied in approaches to confirming patient eligibility, ordering screening low-dose computed tomographic scans, and coordinating follow-up care. Most data elements were collected from structured fields in electronic health records, but sites also made use of standardized order templates, local procedure codes, identifiable hashtags in radiology reports, and natural language processing algorithms. Common challenges included incomplete documentation of tobacco smoking history, difficulty distinguishing between scans performed for screening versus diagnosis or surveillance, and variable adherence with use of standardized templates. Adherence with eligibility criteria as well as the accuracy and completeness of data collection appeared to depend at least partly on availability of personnel and other resources to support the successful implementation of screening. CONCLUSIONS: To maximize the effectiveness of lung cancer screening, minimize the burden of data collection, and facilitate research and quality improvement, clinical workflow and information technology should be purposefully designed to ensure that patients meet eligibility criteria and receive appropriate follow-up testing.
Entities:
Keywords:
electronic health records; lung cancer; registry; screening
Authors: Kim N Danforth; Megan I Early; Sharon Ngan; Anne E Kosco; Chengyi Zheng; Michael K Gould Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Mark C Hornbrook; Gene Hart; Jennifer L Ellis; Donald J Bachman; Gary Ansell; Sarah M Greene; Edward H Wagner; Roy Pardee; Mark M Schmidt; Ann Geiger; Amy L Butani; Terry Field; Hassan Fouayzi; Irina Miroshnik; Liyan Liu; Robert Diseker; Karen Wells; Rick Krajenta; Lois Lamerato; Christine Neslund Dudas Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2005
Authors: Edward H Wagner; Sarah M Greene; Gene Hart; Terry S Field; Suzanne Fletcher; Ann M Geiger; Lisa J Herrinton; Mark C Hornbrook; Christine C Johnson; Judy Mouchawar; Sharon J Rolnick; Victor J Stevens; Stephen H Taplin; Dennis Tolsma; Thomas M Vogt Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2005
Authors: Brady J McKee; Andrea B McKee; Sebastian Flacke; Carla R Lamb; Paul J Hesketh; Christoph Wald Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2013-04-26 Impact factor: 5.532
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: V Paul Doria-Rose; Mary C White; Carrie N Klabunde; Marion R Nadel; Thomas B Richards; Timothy S McNeel; Juan L Rodriguez; Pamela M Marcus Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-05-09 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Chyke A Doubeni; Debra P Ritzwoller; Katharine A Rendle; Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Christine Neslund-Dudas; Robert T Greenlee; Stacey Honda; Jennifer Elston Lafata; Pamela M Marcus; Mary E Cooley; Anil Vachani; Rafael Meza; Caryn Oshiro; Michael J Simoff; Mitchell D Schnall; Elisabeth F Beaber; V Paul Doria-Rose Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2019-12-23
Authors: William E Barlow; Elisabeth F Beaber; Berta M Geller; Aruna Kamineni; Yingye Zheng; Jennifer S Haas; Chun R Chao; Carolyn M Rutter; Ann G Zauber; Brian L Sprague; Ethan A Halm; Donald L Weaver; Jessica Chubak; V Paul Doria-Rose; Sarah Kobrin; Tracy Onega; Virginia P Quinn; Marilyn M Schapira; Anna N A Tosteson; Douglas A Corley; Celette Sugg Skinner; Mitchell D Schnall; Katrina Armstrong; Cosette M Wheeler; Michael J Silverberg; Bijal A Balasubramanian; Chyke A Doubeni; Dale McLerran; Jasmin A Tiro Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Thomas B Richards; V Paul Doria-Rose; Ashwini Soman; Carrie N Klabunde; Ralph S Caraballo; Simone C Gray; Keisha A Houston; Mary C White Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2018-11-19 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Lori C Sakoda; Melanie A Meyer; Neetu Chawla; Michael A Sanchez; Maruta A Blatchins; Sundeep Nayak; Karen San; Gary K Zin; George Minowada Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Nikki M Carroll; Stacey A Honda; Caroline Joyce; Nandita Mitra; Christine Neslund-Dudas; Oluwatosin Olaiya; Katharine A Rendle; Mitchell D Schnall; Anil Vachani; Debra P Ritzwoller Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2022-03
Authors: Jennifer Richmond; Olive M Mbah; Sofia Z Dard; Lauren C Jordan; Katherine S Cools; Cleo A Samuel; Jalaal M Khan; Matthew A Manning Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2018-10-19 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Nikki M Carroll; Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Caroline A Joyce; William Kinnard; Eric J Harker; Virginia Hall; Julie S Steiner; Erica Blum-Barnett; Debra P Ritzwoller Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Peter J Mazzone; Gerard A Silvestri; Lesley H Souter; Tanner J Caverly; Jeffrey P Kanne; Hormuzd A Katki; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Frank C Detterbeck Journal: Chest Date: 2021-07-13 Impact factor: 9.410