Browsing by Subject "Timeliness"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Cancer reporting: timeliness analysis and process reengineering
    (2015-11-09) Jabour, Abdulrahman M.; Jones, Josette; Dixon, Brian; Haggstrom, David; Davide, Bolchini
    Introduction: Cancer registries collect tumor-related data to monitor incident rates and support population-based research. A common concern with using population-based registry data for research is reporting timeliness. Data timeliness have been recognized as an important data characteristic by both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Institute of Medicine (IOM). Yet, few recent studies in the United States (U.S.) have systemically measured timeliness. The goal of this research is to evaluate the quality of cancer data and examine methods by which the reporting process can be improved. The study aims are: 1- evaluate the timeliness of cancer cases at the Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) Cancer Registry, 2- identify the perceived barriers and facilitators to timely reporting, and 3- reengineer the current reporting process to improve turnaround time. Method: For Aim 1: Using the ISDH dataset from 2000 to 2009, we evaluated the reporting timeliness and subtask within the process cycle. For Aim 2: Certified cancer registrars reporting for ISDH were invited to a semi-structured interview. The interviews were recorded and qualitatively analyzed. For Aim 3: We designed a reengineered workflow to minimize the reporting timeliness and tested it using simulation. Result: The results show variation in the mean reporting time, which ranged from 426 days in 2003 to 252 days in 2009. The barriers identified were categorized into six themes and the most common barrier was accessing medical records at external facilities. We also found that cases reside for a few months in the local hospital database while waiting for treatment data to become available. The recommended workflow focused on leveraging a health information exchange for data access and adding a notification system to inform registrars when new treatments are available.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Completeness and timeliness of notifiable disease reporting: a comparison of laboratory and provider reports submitted to a large county health department
    (Springer Nature, 2017-06-23) Dixon, Brian E.; Zhang, Zuoyi; Lai, Patrick T. S.; Kirbiyik, Uzay; Williams, Jennifer; Hills, Rebecca; Revere, Debra; Gibson, P. Joseph; Grannis, Shaun J.; BioHealth Informatics, School of Informatics and Computing
    BACKGROUND: Most public health agencies expect reporting of diseases to be initiated by hospital, laboratory or clinic staff even though so-called passive approaches are known to be burdensome for reporters and produce incomplete as well as delayed reports, which can hinder assessment of disease and delay recognition of outbreaks. In this study, we analyze patterns of reporting as well as data completeness and timeliness for traditional, passive reporting of notifiable disease by two distinct sources of information: hospital and clinic staff versus clinical laboratory staff. Reports were submitted via fax machine as well as electronic health information exchange interfaces. METHODS: Data were extracted from all submitted notifiable disease reports for seven representative diseases. Reporting rates are the proportion of known cases having a corresponding case report from a provider, a faxed laboratory report or an electronic laboratory report. Reporting rates were stratified by disease and compared using McNemar's test. For key data fields on the reports, completeness was calculated as the proportion of non-blank fields. Timeliness was measured as the difference between date of laboratory confirmed diagnosis and the date the report was received by the health department. Differences in completeness and timeliness by data source were evaluated using a generalized linear model with Pearson's goodness of fit statistic. RESULTS: We assessed 13,269 reports representing 9034 unique cases. Reporting rates varied by disease with overall rates of 19.1% for providers and 84.4% for laboratories (p < 0.001). All but three of 15 data fields in provider reports were more often complete than those fields within laboratory reports (p <0.001). Laboratory reports, whether faxed or electronically sent, were received, on average, 2.2 days after diagnosis versus a week for provider reports (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite growth in the use of electronic methods to enhance notifiable disease reporting, there still exists much room for improvement.