1 / 28

Casefinding & Follow-Up

Casefinding & Follow-Up. Dolores E. McCord, RHIT, CTR Piedmont Hospital Atlanta, Georgia. Follow-Up and Casefinding. Inter-related Procedures Casefinding leads to follow-up Follow-up leads to casefinding. Casefinding – Sources. No casefinding, no registry Pathology Department – a MUST

sondra
Download Presentation

Casefinding & Follow-Up

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. Casefinding & Follow-Up Dolores E. McCord, RHIT, CTR Piedmont Hospital Atlanta, Georgia

  2. Follow-Up and Casefinding • Inter-related Procedures • Casefinding leads to follow-up • Follow-up leads to casefinding 2004 GATRA Educational Conference

  3. Casefinding – Sources • No casefinding, no registry • Pathology Department – a MUST • Surgical reports • Hospital patient • Physician office • Path only • Cytology • Bone marrows • Autopsy Reports 2004 GATRA Educational Conference

  4. Casefinding – Sources • No casefinding, no registry • Medical Record Indices – a MUST • Outpatient Departments • Radiation Therapy • Infusion Therapy / Chemotherapy • Others? 2004 GATRA Educational Conference

  5. Casefinding • Multiple sources – to find • Nothing • New patient, new diagnosis • Existing patient, new diagnosis, follow-up of existing diagnosis • Existing patient, existing diagnosis, recurrent or progression, follow-up • Existing patient, existing diagnosis, no change, follow-up 2004 GATRA Educational Conference

  6. Casefinding • History of, existing cases – trouble-makers • Why patient in hospital system with cancer codes? • What if the biopsy was negative? What were they trying to find? • Ruling out presence of cancer? • Trying to confirm presence of cancer, suspected? • What about x-rays, scans? What are they looking for? • Bigger question: How far do you go? 2004 GATRA Educational Conference

  7. Follow-Up • The reason the hospital registry exists. • Finds recurrences and new primaries for existing patients • Requires resources, time, and diligence. • Provides the real value for registry: patient outcome. 2004 GATRA Educational Conference

  8. Follow-Up • Is the patient still alive? • Simple question – answered, • Yes • No. • The patient is dead – end of story? • ICD Cause of Death: to code or not to code. That is the question. 2004 GATRA Educational Conference

  9. Follow-Up • Is the cancer present, or was present at last contact/death? • Not so simple. • Never Disease-Free Cancers: Unknown Primaries, distant metastases at diagnosis. • Can the cancer go away? • Is the patient clinically without evidence of disease – per physician? • Recurrent Cancers: did treatment eradicate all cancer? 2004 GATRA Educational Conference

  10. Follow-Up • Cancer status: 1, 2, or 9? • Last follow-up, cancer status: 1 • Next follow-up, cancer status: 1? • Any evidence for recurrence? • Questionable status – rising markers, uncertainty 2004 GATRA Educational Conference

  11. Follow-Up • Cancer status: 1, 2, or 9? • Last follow-up, cancer status: 2 • Next follow-up, cancer status: 2? • Did treatment eradicate all evidence of cancer? • Where did it go? 2004 GATRA Educational Conference

  12. Follow-Up • Cancer status 1, 2, or 9? • Last follow-up, cancer status: 9 • Next follow-up, cancer status: __? 2004 GATRA Educational Conference

  13. Follow-Up • COC Requirements • Patient status • Cancer status • Recurrence information 2004 GATRA Educational Conference

  14. Follow-Up • Not Required by COC • Subsequent treatment • Specific metastatic site(s) 2004 GATRA Educational Conference

  15. Follow-Up • Subsequent treatment – completes the picture • Recurrences – what happened next? • Non-analytic cases – was cancer care given? • Biopsy? More surgery? Radiation? Chemotherapy? Palliative care? • Administrative reports – radiation, 1st or 2nd course – a must! 2004 GATRA Educational Conference

  16. Follow-Up • Recurrence information – Metastatic Sites • Single site, specific code • Multiple sites, combination code – lose information • Brain mets, at DX and at recurrence – administrative reports 2004 GATRA Educational Conference

  17. Follow-Up Process • Steps = Success • List due for follow-up • Hospital system: inpatients, outpatients, ED • MQS • SSDI • Other? 2004 GATRA Educational Conference

  18. Follow-Up Process • Steps = Success • Letters • Physicians: one vs. all • Patients • Other physicians? • Secondary contacts? • Last resorts – the phone 2004 GATRA Educational Conference

  19. Follow-Up Letters • Patient Letters • Valuable information • New doctors • New address • Date of last contact – post mark date • Returned – Pain in the ____! • MLNA – address search • New address 2004 GATRA Educational Conference

  20. Follow-Up Letters • Physician Letters • Not always reliable • Wrong dates, unknown info • Source for other physicians • Recurrence and subsequent treatment information • Clinical trial inclusion • Keep physician contacts updated 2004 GATRA Educational Conference

  21. Follow-Up Letters • Other Contact Letters • Rarely used • Varied response rates • Could be useful 2004 GATRA Educational Conference

  22. Follow-Up Sources • Letters / Phone calls • Admissions / hospital service (CF) • Path reports (CF) • Clinic / outpatient visits (CF) • Internet sources • Death certificates • Obits 2004 GATRA Educational Conference

  23. Follow-Up Rates • Two Measurements • Since reference date: 80% • Diagnosed last 5 years: 90% • No longer 80% of alive analytic patients • No longer 90% of all analytic patients 2004 GATRA Educational Conference

  24. Follow-Up Rates • Who are not followed? • Non-analytic cases • CIS, CIN III, other III’s • Previously collected localized skins • Benign / borderline tumors • Foreign residents • Reportable by agreement • >100 years old, last contact >12 months 2004 GATRA Educational Conference

  25. Follow-Up Rates • Who are lost? • “…delinquent if no contact has been made with the patient within fifteen months after the date of last contact.” • Hutchison, C.L., S.D. Roffers, and A.G. Fritz (eds.), Cancer registry management: principles and practice. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1997, p. 137. 2004 GATRA Educational Conference

  26. Follow-Up Rates • Who are lost? • Last Contact: June 2003 • 12 months: June 2004 • 13 months: July 2004 • 14 months: August 2004 • 15 months: September 2004 • Lost 16 months: October 2004 2004 GATRA Educational Conference

  27. Follow-Up Rates • Who are lost? • Current month: October 2004 • 12 months back: October 2003 • 13 months back: September 2003 • 14 months back: August 2003 • 15 months back: July 2003 • 16 months & lost: June 2003 & before 2004 GATRA Educational Conference

  28. Casefinding and Follow-Up • Made for each other! • One should always lead to the other. • Both time-consuming processes • Both basis for registry 2004 GATRA Educational Conference

More Related