Availability and quality of industry and occupation information in the Massachusetts cancer registry

Abstract

The nearly one-third (32%) of records that had some improvement in I/O information with a dedicated review indicates considerable opportunity to improve the utility of this resource.

Improving the quality of industry and occupation data at a central cancer registry

“…In an audit by the Massachusetts Cancer Registry, a detailed medical record review improved either the presence or detail of I/O information for 32% of cancer case reports. When combining data from the audit and routine cancer reporting, I/O information could be found for 82% of the cases sampled [Levy et al, 2001]. To our knowledge, there have been no published studies evaluating improvements in I/O data quality after the provision of training to hospital registrars who report to central cancer registries.…”

Concordance Between Current Job and Usual Job in Occupational and Industry Groupings

“…For example, I&O data are entered into the medical record through various administrative or clinically based mechanisms by physicians, nurses, admitting clerks, and other hospital personnel. 3 In addition, the purposes for collecting such information are often unrelated to identifying occupational exposures. When I&O data are present in the medical record, they may be incomplete, and from an uncertain time frame (ie, they may be the current and not usual I&O).…”

“…For example, in a review of medical records containing I&O information from 758 cancer patients, only 5% included information indicating that the I&O reflected the patient’s usual employment. 3 Likewise, the I&O data captured on a death certificate may also be from an uncertain time frame (ie, it may be the I&O at the time of death and not usual I&O). Furthermore, it is common for current job to be used as a surrogate for usual job in studies where only current job is available.…”

Capture and coding of industry and occupation measures: Findings from eight National Program of Cancer Registries states

“…This study revealed that detailed medical record review improved either the presence or detail of I&O information for 32% of the 1 020 cases reviewed. 9 The researchers also noted the lack of consistency in documentation within the medical record of information related to I&O. Furthermore, they cited the need for training and time allocation for hospital registrars to continue detailed record reviews.…”

“…Often, these data may be missing, incomplete, lacking detail, and/or more likely to be ascertained in patients with cancers that have known association to occupational exposures (ie, differential misclassification). 9 Furthermore, coding I&O data manually is a time and resource intensive process that is prohibitive in many cases; the availability of a tool that could reduce the time of manual coding would be helpful in a myriad of studies of occupation, not just occupational cancer.…”