Leveraging state cancer registries to measure and improve the quality of cancer care: A potential strategy for california and beyond

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Volumn 107, Issue 5, 2015, Pages

  Hiatt, Robert A ^a   Tai, Caroline G ^a   Blayney, Douglas W ^b   Deapen, Dennis ^c   Hogarth, Michael ^d   Kizer, Kenneth W ^e   Lipscomb, Joseph ^f   Malin, Jennifer ^g   Phillips, Stephen K ^h   Santa, John ⁱ   Schrag, Deborah ^j  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b STANFORD CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine ^*  (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^f EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^g Wellpoint Inc   (United States)

^h PC   (United States)

ⁱ Consumer Reports Health ^*  (United States)

^j HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER PREVENTION; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER STAGING; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; ETHNICITY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH INSURANCE; HEALTH SURVEY; HOSPITAL DISCHARGE; HUMAN; NEOPLASM; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT DECISION MAKING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP; QUALITY OF LIFE; RACE DIFFERENCE; REVIEW; SEX DIFFERENCE; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; INSURANCE; MEDICAL RECORD; REGISTER; STANDARDS; UNITED STATES;

CALIFORNIA; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; HUMANS; INSURANCE CLAIM REPORTING; MEDICAL RECORD LINKAGE; NEOPLASMS; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; QUALITY IMPROVEMENT; REGISTRIES;

EID: 84928430789     PISSN: 00278874     EISSN: 14602105     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djv047     Document Type: Review

References (46)

1. Institute of Medicine. Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis. National Academy Press; 2013.
2. American Society of Clinical Oncology. The State of Cancer Care in America, 2014: A Report by the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Oncol Pract. 2014;10(2):119-142.
3. American Cancer Society, California Department of Public Health, California Cancer Registry. California Cancer Facts & Figures 2014. Oakland, CA: American Cancer Society, Inc. California Division; 2014.
4. Spinks TE, Walters R, Feeley TW, et al. Improving Cancer Care Through Public Reporting Of Meaningful Quality Measures. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(4):664-672.
5. Porter ME, Lee TH. The Strategy That Will Fix HealthCare. Harv Bus Rev. 2013;1-19.
6. Huckman RS, Kelley MA. Public Reporting, Consumerism, and Patient Empowerment. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(20):1875-1877.
7. California Cancer Registry. Sacramento, CA: California Cancer Registry; 2009. http://www. ccrcal. org/. Accessed April 11, 2014.
8. National Program of Cancer Registries. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2013. http://www. cdc. gov/cancer/npcr/about. htm. Accessed April 11, 2014.
9. Mallin K, Palis BE, Watroba N, et al. Completeness of American Cancer Registry Treatment Data: Implications for Quality of Care Research. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216(3):428-437.
10. In H, Bilimoria KY, Stewart AK, et al. Cancer Recurrence: An Important but Missing Variable in National Cancer Registries. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(5):1520-1529.
11. National Cancer Data Base (NCDB). Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons; 2013. http://www. facs. org/cancer/ncdb/. Accessed April 11, 2014.
12. Schilsky R, Swain S, Hauser R, et al. Lessons learned from the development of the CancerLinQ prototype: Clinical decision support. ASCO's Quality Care Symposium; 2013.
13. How the SEER & Medicare Data are Linked. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2014. http://appliedresearch. cancer. gov/seermedicare/overview/linked. html. Accessed April 11, 2014.
14. Cancer Care Outcomes Research & Surveillance Consortium (CanCORS). Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2014. http://appliedresearch. cancer. gov/cancors/. Accessed December 2, 2014.
15. Ayanian JZ. Understanding Cancer Treatment and Outcomes: The Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(15):2992-2996.
16. Bradley CJ, Penberthy L, Devers KJ, Holden DJ. Health Services Research and Data Linkages: Issues, Methods, and Directions for the Future: Health Services Research and Data Linkages. Health Serv Res. 2010;45(5 p2):1468-1488.
17. Hernandez MN, MacKinnon JA, Penberthy L, Bonner J, Huang YX. Enhancing central cancer registry treatment data using physician medical claims: A Florida pilot project. J Regist Manag. 2014;41(2):51-56.
18. Forte GJ, Hanley A, Hagerty K, Kurup A, Neuss MN, Mulvey TM. American Society of Clinical Oncology national census of oncology practices: Preliminary report. J Oncol Pract. 2013;9(1):9-19.
19. DuVall SL, Fraser AM, Rowe K, Thomas A, Mineau GP. Evaluation of record linkage between a large healthcare provider and the Utah Population Database. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19(e1):e54-e59.
20. Weber SC, Seto T, Olson C, Kenkare P, Kurian AW, Das AK. Oncoshare: lessons learned from building an integrated multi-institutional database for comparative effectiveness research. AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings. American Medical Informatics Association: 2012;970. http://www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC3540570/. Accessed April 11, 2014.
21. Kurian AW, Mitani A, Desai M, et al. Breast cancer treatment across health care systems: Linking electronic medical records and state registry data to enable outcomes research: Data Integration for Outcomes Research. Cancer. 2014;120(1):103-111.
22. HIMSS Analytics. Chicago, IL: HIMSS Analytics; 2014. http://www. himssanalytics. org/home/index. aspx. Accessed April 11, 2014.
23. Hogarth M, Kizer K. Personal communication. May 15, 2013.
24. Hassell LA, Parwani AV, Weiss L, Jones MA, Ye J. Challenges and opportunities in the adoption of College of American Pathologists checklists in electronic format: perspectives and experience of Reporting Pathology Protocols Project (RPP2) participant laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134(8):1152-1159.
25. North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Electronic Pathology (E-Path) reporting guidelines; 2006. http://www. cdph. ca. gov/data/informatics/Documents/EPathReportGuide. pdf. Accessed April 11, 2014.
26. NQF: Who we are. Washington DC: National Quality Forum; 2014. http://www. qualityforum. org/who-we-are. aspx. Accessed April 11, 2014.
27. Kizer KW. Establishing health care performance standards in an era of consumerism. JAMA. 2001;286(10):1213-1217.
28. Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Q. 1966;83:691-729.
29. NQF: Quality Positioning SystemTM. Washington DC: National Quality Forum; 2014. https://www. qualityforum. org/QPS/QPSTool. aspx. Accessed April 11, 2014.
30. Data Interoperability Standards. Alexandria, VA: American Society of Clinical Oncology; 2014. http://www. asco. org/practice-research/data-interoperability-standards. Accessed April 11, 2014.
31. American College of Surgeons: Cancer Programs: National Cancer Data Base (NCDB): Rapid Quality Reporting System (RQRS). http://www. facs. org/cancer/ncdb/rqrs. html. Accessed April 11, 2014.
32. Howlader N, Noone A-M, Yu M, Cronin KA. Use of Imputed Population-based Cancer Registry Data as a Method of Accounting for Missing Information: Application to Estrogen Receptor Status for Breast Cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;176(4):347-356.
33. Ayanian JZ. Use of Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Radiation Therapy for Colorectal Cancer in a Population-Based Cohort. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(7):1293-1300.
34. Charlson M, Wells MT, Ullman R, King F, Shmukler C. The Charlson Comorbidity Index Can Be Used Prospectively to Identify Patients Who Will Incur High Future Costs. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(12):e112479.
35. Lamb GC, Smith MA, Weeks WB, Queram C. Publicly Reported Quality-Of-Care Measures Influenced Wisconsin Physician Groups To Improve Performance. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(3):536-543.
36. Pollard C, Bailey KA, Petitte T, Baus A, Swim M, Hendryx M. Electronic patient registries improve diabetes care and clinical outcomes in rural community health centers. J Rural Health. 2009;25(1):77-84.
37. Hibbard JH, Stockard J, Tusler M. Does Publicizing Hospital Performance Stimulate Quality Improvement Efforts? Health Aff (Millwood). 2003;22(2):84-94.
38. Meaningful Use Definition and Meaningful Use Objectives of EHRs. Washington DC: HealthIT. gov; 2014. http://www. healthit. gov/providers-professionals/meaningful-use-definition-objectives. Accessed April 11, 2014.
39. CA Codes (hsc:103875-103885). http://www. leginfo. ca. gov/cgi-bin/displayco de?section=hsc&group=103001-104000&file=103875-103885. Accessed April 11, 2014.
40. Policies and Procedures for Access to and Disclosure of Confidential Data from the California Cancer Registry. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Public Health; 2014. http://www. ccrcal. org/pdf/Data-Statistics/CCRPoliciesProcedures- v05. 1. pdf. Accessed April 11, 2014.
41. Schrag D, Virnig BA, Warren JL. Linking tumor registry and Medicaid claims to evaluate cancer care delivery. Health Care Financ Rev. 2009;30(4):61-73.
42. Brooks GA, Li L, Sharma DB, et al. Regional Variation in Spending and Survival for Older Adults With Advanced Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(9):634-642.
43. Kent EE, Ambs A, Mitchell SA, Clauser SB, Smith AW, Hays RD. Health-related quality of life in older adult survivors of selected cancers: Data from the SEER-MHOS linkage: HRQOL in Older Adult Cancer Survivors. Cancer. 2014; In press.
44. Sinclair AH, Schymura MJ, Boscoe FP, et al. Measuring colorectal cancer care quality for the publicly insured in New York State. Cancer Med. 2012;1(3):363-371.
45. Camacho FT, Wu J, Wei W, Kimmick G, Anderson RT, Balkrishnan R. Cost impact of oral capecitabine compared to intravenous taxane-based chemotherapy in first-line metastatic breast cancer. J Med Econ. 2009;12(3):238-245.
46. Lipscomb J, Gillespie TW. State-level cancer quality assessment and research: building and sustaining the data infrastructure. Cancer J. 2011;17(4):246-256.