• Online Features  This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (4)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Oncology  • Colon Cancer  • Quality of Care  • Quality of Care, Other  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Diagnosis  • Gastroenterology  • Gastrointestinal Diseases  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

A Field Test of the National Committee for Quality Assurance's Colorectal Cancer Screening Measure

Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(8):876-882.

Background  Relatively few studies have evaluated the scientific soundness of widely used performance measures. This study evaluated quality measures by describing a field test of the colorectal cancer screening measure included in the Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set of the National Committee for Quality Assurance.

Methods  We conducted a field test in 5 health care plans that enrolled 189 193 individuals considered eligible for colorectal cancer screening. We assessed measurement bias by calculating the prevalence of colorectal cancer screening while varying the data sources used (administrative data only, a hybrid of administrative data and medical record data, and enrollee survey data only) and the minimum required enrollment period (2-10 years).

Results  Across the 5 health care plans, the percentage of health care plan enrollees counted as screened varied according to the data used, ranging from 27.3% to 47.1% with the administrative data, 38.6% to 53.5% with the hybrid data, and 53.2% to 69.7% with the survey data. The relative ranking of plans also varied. One health care plan ranked first based on administrative data, second based on hybrid data, and fourth based on survey data. Survey respondents were more likely than nonrespondents to have evidence of colorectal cancer screening (62.7% vs 46.5%; P < .001).

Conclusions  Administrative data seem to underestimate colorectal cancer screening and survey data seem to overestimate it, suggesting that a hybrid data approach offers the most accurate measure of screening. Implementation of performance measures should include evaluation of their scientific soundness.

Author Affiliations: Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, and Division of General Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts (Dr Schneider); Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia (Dr Nadel); Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston (Dr Zaslavsky); and the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California (Dr McGlynn).

CiteULike    Connotea    Delicious    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening in Integrated Health Care Systems
Levin et al.
Epidemiol Rev 2011;33:101-110.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

National Assessment of Melanoma Care Using Formally Developed Quality Indicators
Bilimoria et al.
JCO 2009;27:5445-5451.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Yield of Claims Data and Surveys for Determining Colon Cancer Screening among Health Plan Members
Pignone et al.
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18:726-731.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Patient and Physician Reminders to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Sequist et al.
Arch Intern Med 2009;169:364-371.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT