Abstract
Valid data are required to monitor and measure the quality of cancer treatment. This study aims to assess the usability of diagnosis procedure combination (DPC) survey discharge summary data. DPC survey data were analyzed by linking them to the hospital-based cancer registries (HBCR) from 231 hospitals. We focused on patients who were aged 20 years or older and diagnosed in 2013 with stomach, colorectal, liver, lung, or breast cancer. We assessed the percentage of unknown/missing values in supplementary data for patients with five common cancers and compared DPC cancer stage information to that of HBCR. In total, 279,451 discharge data sets for 180,399 patients were analyzed. The percentages of unknown data for smoking index and height/weight were 10.5% and 2.3%, respectively, and varied from 0.0% to 93.0% between hospitals. In the activity of daily living component, the rates of missing data for climbing stairs (3.6%) and bathing (2.9%) at admission were slightly higher than for other elements. Unexpectedly low concordance rate of tumor, node, and metastasis classification between DPC survey and HBCR data was observed as 80.6%, which means 20.4% of the data showed discrepancies. The usability of DPC survey discharge summary data is generally acceptable, but some variables had substantial amounts of missing values.
Highlights
Collected data from electronic health records, including administrative health claims and registries, are useful resources when evaluating the real-world effectiveness and safety of medical care [1]
This study aims to assess the usability of diagnosis procedure combination (DPC) survey discharge summary data
DPC survey data were analyzed by linking them to the hospital-based cancer registries (HBCR) from 231 hospitals
Summary
Collected data from electronic health records, including administrative health claims and registries, are useful resources when evaluating the real-world effectiveness and safety of medical care [1] Such health data are a by-product of the daily operations of healthcare systems and are collected independently of specific a priori research questions [2]. These secondary data sources provide a low-cost means to answer research questions, where answers can be obtained in a relatively short time-frame and the data are more representative of routine clinical practice, and large cohorts of patients can be followed over long time periods [3]. The potential for error occurs at many points during the process of record entry and keeping [4]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
