1 / 22

Federal Cancer Surveillance Update

Updates on federal and state cancer surveillance efforts, evaluation of data quality, and recommendations for improving reporting practices to ensure accurate cancer registries.

sussman
Télécharger la présentation

Federal Cancer Surveillance Update

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. Federal Cancer Surveillance Update 2019

  2. Federal Cancer Surveillance • Feeling the impact of delays in 2018 NPCR reporting requirements and software delays • Multiple work groups created for additional feedback on future requirements, progress on dealing with 2018 reporting and record backlogs • Surveys, focus groups conducted in the Spring, and special workgroup convened to assess feasibility of achieving 90% completeness within 12 months of diagnosis

  3. State Cancer Surveillance Update 2019

  4. State Cancer Surveillance • SEER Registry RFP • Dealing with the 2018 Reporting and Software delays • Reporting Calendar Adjustments • Case-finding/Death Clearance Timing • Call for Data Status – 2017 and 2018 cases

  5. National Program of Cancer Registries 2018 – 2019 Data Quality Evaluation 2019

  6. National Program of Cancer RegistriesData Quality Evaluation 2018 – 2019 • This year, a data quality evaluation for diagnosis year 2010-2016 was completed for the Texas Cancer Registry. • It was conducted by Westat on behalf of NPCR

  7. Purpose of theNPCR Data Quality Evaluation

  8. Data Elements Reviewed During Reconsolidation

  9. Number of Data Elements & Cases Reviewed by Primary Site

  10. Data Accuracy Proportion for Consolidated Data Elements Data Accuracy (%) = 100 - (100 * Number of Data Elements With Discrepancies Divided by Total Number of Data Elements) 100 – (100 * (214 / 8760)) = 97.6% 97.6%

  11. Number of Major Errors & Minor Errors by Primary Site Major Errors Minor Errors

  12. Top Data Elements with Major Errors—All Sites Combined

  13. Data Elements with Lowest Accuracy Proportions: Bladder Cases

  14. Data Elements with Lowest Accuracy Proportions: Breast Cases

  15. Data Elements with Lowest Accuracy Proportions: Lung Cases

  16. Data Elements with Lowest Accuracy Proportions: Melanoma

  17. Data Elements with Lowest Accuracy Proportions: Colon Cases

  18. Multiple Primary and Histology Evaluation * Both errors were in melanoma cases.

  19. Percentage of Major Errors By Category All Sites Combined

  20. Recommendations for Review of Abstracting Practices Grade Derived SS2000/SS2000 Treatment

  21. Recommendations for Review of Abstracting Practices (cont’d) Multiple Primaries

More Related