首页> 外文OA文献 >Do GPs know their patients with cancer? Assessing the quality of cancer registration in Dutch primary care: a cross-sectional validation study
【2h】

Do GPs know their patients with cancer? Assessing the quality of cancer registration in Dutch primary care: a cross-sectional validation study

机译:全科医生知道他们的癌症患者吗?评估荷兰基层医疗机构中癌症登记的质量:横断面验证研究

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Objectives: To assess the quality of cancer registry in primary care. Design and setting: A cross-sectional validation study using linked data from primary care electronic health records (EHRs) and the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). Population: 290 000 patients, registered with 120 general practitioners (GPs), from 50 practice centres in the Utrecht area, the Netherlands, in January 2013. Intervention: Linking the EHRs of all patients in the Julius General Practitioners' Network database at an individual patient level to the full NCR (similar to 1.7 million tumours between 1989 and 2011), to determine the proportion of matching cancer diagnoses. Full-text EHR extraction and manual analysis for non-matching diagnoses. Main outcome measures: Proportions of matching and non-matching breast, lung, colorectal and prostate cancer diagnoses between 2007 and 2011, stratified by age category, cancer type and EHR system. Differences in year of diagnosis between the EHR and the NCR. Reasons for non-matching diagnoses. Results: In the Primary Care EHR, 60.6% of cancer cases were registered and coded in accordance with the NCR. Of the EHR diagnoses, 48.9% were potentially false positive (not registered in the NCR). Results differed between EHR systems but not between age categories or cancer types. The year of diagnosis corresponded in 80.6% of matching coded diagnoses. Adding full-text EHR analysis improved results substantially. A national disease registry (the NCR) proved incomplete. Conclusions: Even though GPs do know their patients with cancer, only 60.6% are coded in concordance with the NCR. Reusers of coded EHR data should be aware that 40% of cases can be missed, and almost half can be false positive. The type of EHR system influences registration quality. If full-text manual EHR analysis is used, only 10% of cases will be missed and 20% of cases found will be wrong. EHR data should only be reused with care.
机译:目的:评估初级保健中癌症登记的质量。设计和设置:一项横断面验证研究,使用来自初级保健电子健康记录(EHR)和荷兰癌症注册机构(NCR)的链接数据。人口:2013年1月,来自荷兰乌得勒支地区50个执业中心的290 000名患者,向120名全科医生注册。干预措施:将朱利叶斯全科医生网络数据库中所有患者的EHR链接在一起患者水平至整个NCR(在1989年至2011年间约有170万例肿瘤),以确定匹配的癌症诊断比例。全文EHR提取和手动分析,用于不匹配的诊断。主要结局指标:2007年至2011年之间匹配,不匹配的乳腺癌,肺癌,结肠直肠癌和前列腺癌的诊断比例,按年龄类别,癌症类型和EHR系统进行了分层。 EHR和NCR在诊断年份方面的差异。诊断不匹配的原因。结果:在初级保健电子病历中,有60.6%的癌症病例按照NCR进行了注册和编码。在EHR诊断中,有48.9%可能是假阳性(未在NCR中注册)。 EHR系统之间的结果不同,但年龄类别或癌症类型之间没有差异。诊断年份占匹配编码诊断的80.6%。添加全文EHR分析可以显着改善结果。国家疾病登记系统(NCR)证明不完整。结论:即使GP确实知道他们的癌症患者,也只有60.6%的编码符合NCR。编码EHR数据的重用者应注意,有40%的病例可能会漏诊,而几乎一半的病例是假阳性。 EHR系统的类型会影响注册质量。如果使用全文人工EHR分析,则只会漏掉10%的案例,而发现20%的案例是错误的。 EHR数据仅应谨慎使用。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号