Completeness of data entry in three cancer surgery databases.

AIMS Clinical databases are regularly used for audit and research purposes. The accuracy of data input is critical to the value of these tools, but little is known about the factors which influence the completeness of data recording. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influences affecting completeness of data recording in computerized clinical databases of cancer treatment. METHODS Data omission rates in three databases dealing with management of breast, colorectal and gastro-oesophageal cancers were calculated. The effects of (a) type of record; (b) nature of data and (c) training required to interpret data were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS The overall data omission rate was 21.9% (upper GI 27.6%, breast 19.6%, colorectal 32.7%, P=0.13). For different categories of data, omission rates varied from 0% to 55%. Fields requiring a 'text field' or 'numerical' entry, or containing demographic data, data required for the process of care or data which required no interpretation were associated with low omission rates. Clinical data, and fields requiring a 'yes/no' response were associated with high omission rates (45 and 48% respectively). Clinical data and data relating to patient demographic details were independently associated with high and low omission rates respectively (odds ratios for significant missing data 86.9 and 1 respectively). CONCLUSION Clinical data are poorly captured by current cancer surgery databases. Reasons for the poor completion of fields requiring input by clinical staff, particularly availability of time and training, and prioritization of work, should be addressed. Re-design of databases to ensure that data entry is simple and unambiguous may improve accuracy.

[1]  G. Maddocks,et al.  Accuracy of diagnostic content of hospital activity analysis in infectious diseases. , 1979, British medical journal.

[2]  K. Detre,et al.  The NIDDK liver transplantation database. , 1987, Clinical transplants.

[3]  C. Lyons,et al.  Medical audit data: counting is not enough. , 1990, BMJ.

[4]  M. Puterman,et al.  Reliability audit of a regional cardiac surgery registry. , 1997, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[5]  C. Macintyre,et al.  Accuracy of ICD–9–CM codes in hospital morbidity data, Victoria: implications for public health research , 1977, Australian and New Zealand journal of public health.

[6]  B. Weinshenker,et al.  Databases in MS research: pitfalls and promises , 1999, Multiple sclerosis.

[7]  L. Lidgren,et al.  Validation of the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register: a postal survey regarding 30,376 knees operated on between 1975 and 1995. , 1999, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[8]  M M McGilchrist,et al.  An audit of the accuracy of upper gastrointestinal diagnoses in Scottish Morbidity Record 1 data in Tayside. , 1995, Health bulletin.

[9]  J. Little.  CLINICAL DATABASES AND SURGICAL RESEARCH , 1992 .

[10]  J. Hunter,et al.  Complete clinical outcomes audit , 1999, Surgical Endoscopy.

[11]  J Crook,et al.  Capturing tumour stage in a cancer information database. , 1998, Cancer prevention & control : CPC = Prevention & controle en cancerologie : PCC.

[12]  J. Cello,et al.  Accuracy of endoscopic databases for assessing patient symptoms: comparison with self-reported questionnaires in patients infected with the human immunodeficiency virus. , 2000, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[13]  A L Shroyer,et al.  Updates to the Data Quality Review Program: the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac National Database. , 1998, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[14]  D. Marsh,et al.  Quality of data in the Manchester orthopaedic database. , 1992, BMJ.

[15]  I. Deary,et al.  Consent for transfusion , 1997, BMJ.

[16]  C. Everett,et al.  Incidence and outcome of bleeding before the 20th week of pregnancy: prospective study from general practice , 1997, BMJ.

[17]  J. Hunter,et al.  Resource requirements and validation of the instrument , 1999 .

[18]  J. Owen,et al.  Trauma registry databases: a comparison of data abstraction, interpretation, and entry at two level I trauma centers. , 1999 .

[19]  L. Mariani,et al.  Results of a breast-cancer-surgery trial compared with observational data from routine practice , 1996, The Lancet.

[20]  J. Murdoch,et al.  The surgical management of cervical carcinoma within the South West of England: progress through an audit loop , 2000, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[21]  S. Ewen,et al.  Incidence of salivary gland tumours in Scotland: accuracy of national records. , 1978, British medical journal.