Abstract
The Thames Cancer Registry (TCR) has registered a high proportion of tumours from death certificate information only (DCO) registrations. This paper describes the results of a study set up to establish whether this proportion could be reduced by linking cancer registrations with routine hospital data from the Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) data set using computerized matching. A total of 67 752 registrations were identified from the TCR. Matches were found in the HES data set for 66%. The proportion of cases retrieved for each tumour site was: 72% for colorectal cancer; 62% for cancer of the lung, trachea or bronchus; and 65% for female breast cancer. For all three tumour sites the proportion of matches found for patients registered from hospital case notes was higher than the proportion found for patients registered as DCOs (P< 0.0001 for all three tumour sites). Among matched DCO cases, 58% had at least one procedure recorded. DCO rates might be reduced by as much as 43% (from 17% of total registrations to less than 10%) for the three most common cancers if the method of electronic matching outlined here was used. Younger age groups, prognosis of tumour site and residence in North Thames region were all positively associated with successful matching (P< 0.0001 in all three cases). Many matched DCO cases were found to have had more than one admission for cancer. Among ordinary in-patient admissions, admissions to patients ratios of 1.5, 1.4 and 1.9 were found for colorectal, lung and breast cancers respectively. Of 5190 matched DCOs a procedure was recorded for 3013 (58%). HES data offer a useful aid to follow-up of case notes on patients identified to the registry by death certificates. Doubts about the completeness and accuracy of HES data mean case notes must remain the ‘gold standard’. © 2000 Cancer Research Campaign
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
Change history
16 November 2011
This paper was modified 12 months after initial publication to switch to Creative Commons licence terms, as noted at publication
References
Chow WH and Devesa SS (1992) Death certificate reporting of colon and rectal cancers. JAMA 267: 3028
Gill L, Goldacre M, Simmons H, Bettley G and Griffith M (1993) Computerised linking of medical records: methodological guidelines. J Epidemiol Commun Health 47: 316–319
Government Statistical Service (1993). Hospital Episode Statistics, 1989–1990. HMSO: London
Grulich AE, Swerdlow AJ, Dos Santos Silva I and Beral V (1995) Is the apparent rise in cancer mortality in the elderly real? Analysis of changes in certification and coding of cause of death in England and Wales, 1970–1990. Int J Cancer 63: 164–168
Jensen OM, Parkin DM, Maclennan R, Muir CS and Skeet RG (1991). Cancer Registration: Principles and Methods. IARC Scientific Publications: Lyon
Majeed FA and Voss S (1995) Performance indicators for general practice. Br Med J 311: 209–210
Office of Population Censuses Surveys (1990). Classification of Surgical Operations and Procedures 4th Edn. Office of Population Censuses and Surveys: London
Percy C, Stanek EIII and Gloeckler L (1981) Accuracy of cancer death certificates and its effects on cancer mortality statistics. Am J Public Health 71: 242–250
Pollock AM and Vickers N (1994) The impact on colorectal cancer survival of cases registered by ‘death certificate only’: implications for national survival data. Br J Cancer 70: 1229–1231
Pollock AM and Vickers N (1995) Why are a quarter of cancers in South East England registered by “death certificate only” (DCO)? Factors related to DCO registrations in the Thames Cancer Registry between 1987 and 1989. Br J Cancer 71: 637–641
Thames Cancer Registry (1995). Cancer in South East England 1992. Thames Cancer Registry: Sutton
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
From twelve months after its original publication, this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
About this article
Cite this article
Pollock, A., Vickers, N. Reducing DCO registrations through electronic matching of cancer registry data and routine hospital data. Br J Cancer 82, 712–717 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1054/bjoc.1999.0985
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1054/bjoc.1999.0985
This article is cited by
-
In the absence of cancer registry data, is it sensible to assess incidence using hospital separation records?
International Journal for Equity in Health (2006)