Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Development of a Radiation Oncology-Specific Prospective Data Registry for Research and Quality Improvement: A Clinical Workflow-Based Solution

Development of a Radiation Oncology-Specific Prospective Data Registry for Research and Quality... Purpose: The computerized paperless medical recording system has transformed the modern health information system and serves as an idea platform for registry development, particularly in a specialty such as radiation oncology, where technologic advances continue to generate unprecedented amounts of complex data. We present our single-institution experience with the development of a real-time observational registry fully integrated into the process of routine clinical workflow and show how this has the potential to transform research and quality assurance. Materials and Methods: From May 2011 to May 2016, physicians prospectively inputted data during the process of routine charting on patients seen in clinic. Using a customized interface established between an in-house registry and a commercially available, hospital-based electronic medical record system (Epic Systems, Verona, WI), a departmentally based parser was created for automatic data deposition, which was also linked to the Aria Treatment Planning Station (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). The total number of data fields embedded per disease site ranged from nine to 73 (median, 21 fields). Results: A total of 12,341 patients were logged into the registry, of whom 6,911 completed a course of radiation therapy. Primary disease sites were prostate (n = 2,340), breast (n = 2,159), head or neck (n = 1,426), primary CNS (n = 1,338), lung (n = 749), brain metastasis (n = 739), GI (n = 638), gynecologic (n = 534), and other or benign (n = 3,618). A total of 54 independent, investigator-initiated research studies have been initiated using queries supported by the registry from multiple access points, of which 23 were published in peer-reviewed journals. Conclusion: The development of a radiation oncology-specific registry enhanced research efficiency and facilitated quality assurance by producing clear and quality information to guide clinical practice. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics Wolters Kluwer Health

Development of a Radiation Oncology-Specific Prospective Data Registry for Research and Quality Improvement: A Clinical Workflow-Based Solution

Download PDF
9 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wolters-kluwer-health/development-of-a-radiation-oncology-specific-prospective-data-registry-e2i870EHIx
Publisher
Wolters Kluwer Health
Copyright
(C) 2018 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
ISSN
2473-4276
DOI
10.1200/CCI.17.00036
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose: The computerized paperless medical recording system has transformed the modern health information system and serves as an idea platform for registry development, particularly in a specialty such as radiation oncology, where technologic advances continue to generate unprecedented amounts of complex data. We present our single-institution experience with the development of a real-time observational registry fully integrated into the process of routine clinical workflow and show how this has the potential to transform research and quality assurance. Materials and Methods: From May 2011 to May 2016, physicians prospectively inputted data during the process of routine charting on patients seen in clinic. Using a customized interface established between an in-house registry and a commercially available, hospital-based electronic medical record system (Epic Systems, Verona, WI), a departmentally based parser was created for automatic data deposition, which was also linked to the Aria Treatment Planning Station (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). The total number of data fields embedded per disease site ranged from nine to 73 (median, 21 fields). Results: A total of 12,341 patients were logged into the registry, of whom 6,911 completed a course of radiation therapy. Primary disease sites were prostate (n = 2,340), breast (n = 2,159), head or neck (n = 1,426), primary CNS (n = 1,338), lung (n = 749), brain metastasis (n = 739), GI (n = 638), gynecologic (n = 534), and other or benign (n = 3,618). A total of 54 independent, investigator-initiated research studies have been initiated using queries supported by the registry from multiple access points, of which 23 were published in peer-reviewed journals. Conclusion: The development of a radiation oncology-specific registry enhanced research efficiency and facilitated quality assurance by producing clear and quality information to guide clinical practice.

Journal

JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics – Wolters Kluwer Health

Published: Mar 6, 2018

References

  • The evolution of the population-based cancer registry
    Parkin DM
  • Implementing patient-reported outcome surveys as part of routine care: Lessons from an academic radiation oncology department
    Rotenstein LS; Agarwal A; O'Neil K
  • Improving an electronic system for measuring PROs in routine oncology practice
    Wu AW; White SM; Blackford AL
  • Data management, documentation and analysis systems in radiation oncology: A multi-institutional survey
    Kessel KA; Combs SE
  • Opportunities and challenges in leveraging electronic health record data in oncology
    Berger ML; Curtis MD; Smith G
  • Evolving treatment plan quality criteria from institution-specific experience
    Ruan D; Shao W; Demarco J
  • Considerations for observational research using large data sets in radiation oncology
    Jagsi R; Bekelman JE; Chen A
  • Identifying the barriers to conducting outcomes research in integrative health care clinic settings: A qualitative study
    Verhoef MJ; Mulkins A; Kania A
  • Information management in cancer registries: Evaluating the needs for cancer data collection and cancer research
    Zachary I; Boren SA; Simoes E
  • Integration of electronic patient-reported outcomes into routine cancer care: An analysis of factors affecting data compliance
    Wysham NG; Wolf SP; Samsa G
  • Proton beam therapy: Do we need the randomised trials and can we do them
    Glimelius B; Montelius A
  • Value: A framework for radiation oncology
    Teckie S; McCloskey SA; Steinberg ML
  • The American Board of Radiology radiation oncology maintenance of certification part 3 modular examination: Evaluation of the first administration
    Wallner PE; Gerdeman A; Willis JM
  • Does peer review of radiation plans affect clinical care
    Brunskill K; Nguyen TK; Boldt RG
  • Use of benchmark dose-volume histograms for selection of the optimal technique between three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy in prostate cancer
    Luo C; Yang CC; Narayan S
  • A longitudinal four-dimensional computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography dataset for image-guided radiation therapy research in lung cancer
    Hugo GD; Weiss E; Sleeman WC
  • Developing a national radiation oncology registry: From acorns to oaks
    Palta JR; Efstathiou JA; Bekelman JE