1 / 29

What’s the Diff?

Sue C. Vest, CTR Missouri Cancer Registry

constance
Télécharger la présentation

What’s the Diff?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Sue C. Vest, CTR Missouri Cancer Registry This project was supported in part by a cooperative agreement between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) (#U55/CCU721904) and a Surveillance Contract between DHSS and the University of Missouri. What’s the Diff?

  2. Acknowledgements • Jeannette Jackson-Thompson, MSPH, PhD • Nancy Cole, CTR • Deborah Smith, CTR • Louanne Currence, RHIT, CTR • Chester Schmaltz, Graduate Research Asst. • All other registrars who offered comments and suggestions

  3. Objectives • Determine if the use of 8010 rather than 8000 is a good quality indicator. • Identify ways coding uniformity can be improved in facilities and central registries.

  4. WHY!! • Reaction to CDC National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) QI reports • Percentage of cases coded to 8000-8005 is NOT a good QI indicator • Diagnostic confirmation • Reporting Source (Death Clearance Only (DCO)) • Clear guidelines on how to code non-specific histology are lacking

  5. What? • Discussions • Restricted Access File • MCR data review • Survey • Poster presentation at NAACCR 2006

  6. % Non-specific Morphology [420]All Sites Combined*, Both GendersIndividual State Registries and NPCR Registries Combined, 2001 diagnosis year

  7. MCR Stats – by Dx Confirmation

  8. MCR Stats – Reporting Source

  9. NPCR Restricted Access File (RAF) • Record level 1999-2002 data • 37 states meeting NPCR publication criteria (= NAACCR silver certification) • 358,960 cases • Limited release (2 states applied in ’05)

  10. NPCR RAF Data

  11. Death Clearance Only Cases • 8000 – 8005 • range = 3.98% - 96.7% • 8010 • range = 0.00% - 68.67% • All other histology • range = 3.30% - 46.43% Based on 1999-2002 data from NPCR RAF (37 states, 4,289,696 cases)

  12. NPCR RAF Data

  13. Non-microscopically Confirmed • 8000-8005 • Range = 15.93% - 83.48% • 8010 • Range = 0.00% - 52.70% • Other • Range = 15.74% - 40.84% Based on 1999-2002 data from NPCR RAF (37 states, 4,289,696 cases)

  14. Survey • Info • Demographics • Trainings/conferences attended • Case scenarios • Excerpts from hospital cases • Non-hospital cases • Death Certificate Only (DCO) cases

  15. Survey Results • # of responses = 40 • Place of employment • 45% hospital • 45% central registry • 10% other (vendor/contractor/consultant) • CTR = 40 • Attended conferences/workshops = 40

  16. Survey Questions

  17. Survey Case Scenario #2 LEFT KIDNEY: Poorly differentiated malignant neoplasm with … See comment. COMMENT #1: The differential diagnosis includes poorly differentiated renal cell carcinoma and a renal sarcoma such as synovial sarcoma. The pathologic material is being referred for consultation and a final report will follow (no final report available in chart). 8000=87.5% (35) 8010=2.5% (1) 8312=10.0% (4)

  18. Case Scenario #3 CT:…poorly defined area of decreased enhancement suggesting pancreatic head mass. Onc. consult: obstructive jaundice with pancreatic mass very suggestive of pancreatic cancer. Await the cytology from biliary drainage, as well as ca-19-9. It will likely be difficult to establish the diagnosis. Discharge summary diagnosis: 1. Pancreatic mass, likely pancreatic cancer. 8000 = 67.5%(27) 8010 = 17.5%(7) N/R = 12.5% (5)

  19. Survey Case Scenario #4 Non-hospital case Lung primary with mets to liver and skeleton. Patient treated with radiation at unknown facility. 8000 = 67.5% (27) 8010 = 30.0% (12)

  20. Case Scenario #5 • Non-hospital case (nursing home): • Prostate cancer. No stage given. Observation only 8000 = 65% (26) 8010 = 17.5% (7) 8140 = 12.5% (5) N/R = 2.5% (1)

  21. Case Scenario #6 Non-hospital case (nursing home): 2 x 5 cm mass in right outer breast. Patient refused biopsy. Diagnosed with mammogram. Treated with Tamoxifen. 8000 = 57.5% (23) 8010 = 27.5% (11) 8500 = 2.5% (1) N/R = 10% (4)

  22. Case Scenario #9 Death Certificate Only case Cause of death = Metastatic breast carcinoma 8000 = 12.5% (5) 8010 = 82.5% (33) 8500 = 2.5% (1)

  23. ICD-O-3 Morphology • 8000/3 – Neoplasm, malignant • Tumor, malignant NOS • Malignancy • Cancer • Unclassified tumor, malignant • Blastoma, NOS • 8010/3 – Carcinoma, NOS • Epithelial tumor, malignant • “often (incorrectly) used interchangeably”

  24. Other Guidelines • I & R • “…Can we assume if a physician does not state carcinoma, 8000/3 should be used?” • FORDS • “codes for cancer, NOS and carcinoma, NOS are not interchangeable” • SEER Inquiry • …abbreviation “ca” = ???

  25. Effective QI Tool? • Maybe!! • Coding of 8010 must have supporting documentation • Reporting source and diagnostic confirmation must be considered

  26. Conclusions • Need more info to answer the questions • Is the use of more specific histologies a good QI indicator? • Are there adequate guidelines for determining when to use 8000-8005 histology codes?

  27. Lessons Learned • More definitive guidelines needed • Training • Review of non-specific histologies and carcinoma coding • Edits??

  28. Thank you Questions? Sue C. Vest, CTR vests@health.missouri.edu http://mcr.umh.edu

More Related