Journal of registry management最新文献

This paper explores the critical role of networking, particularly within the oncology data specialist community, in developing and implementing an educational course. Networking, both within and beyond academia, is essential for gathering resources, expertise, and support necessary for designing and delivering an effective curriculum tailored to the demands of oncology data analysis. Networking within this specialized community facilitates collaboration with other educators and professionals, sharing of best practices, innovative teaching methodologies, and assessment strategies specific to oncology data analysis. This paper examines how networking within the oncology data specialist community contributed to the creation of a dynamic and comprehensive course, ultimately enriching the educational experience and preparing students for success.

Introduction: Data quality is essential for trauma registries, but few tools have been developed to maximize it. The author's center created a new application to automatically identify >500 logic errors in registry data and produce individualized data quality reports for staff. Objective metrics indicated the application is effective, but staff perceptions were unknown. The aim of this project was to assess registry staff satisfaction with and perceived usefulness of the new application.

Methods: Anonymous cross-sectional online survey with 5-point Likert scales and free-text responses.

Results: Of 10 eligible staff members who use the new application, 8 responded to the survey. Confidence in data accuracy before the new application was generally low but unanimously higher after implementation (8/8; 95% CI, 5/8-8/8). Respondents found the application at least somewhat helpful overall (6/6; 95% CI, 3/6-6/6; 2 nonresponses), with 5/6 finding it very helpful. Respondents were at least somewhat satisfied with the new application (8/8; 95% CI, 5/8-8/8), with 4/8 being very satisfied. There was minimal negative feedback other than the new process being initially overwhelming.

Conclusions: Respondents found the new application to be beneficial in several ways, including indirectly. Additional research is needed to be able to generalize these single center findings and determine best practices for data validation, but software-based approaches to augment more common data validation processes may be a beneficial and welcomed job aid for registry staff.

Accurate cancer registry data is crucial for understanding cancer prevention and treatment strategies. Proper education and training are key for successful quality control (QC) programs and an evaluation process is needed to assess effectiveness. Syapse developed a rigorous QC training program that includes a peer review process to assess data quality and an interrater review (IRR) program to evaluate the consistency of QC reviewers. In reviewing IRR cases, we found high rates of agreement in various cancer types: colon (97.74%), prostate (97.75%), ovarian (96.31%), lung (98.03%), breast (97.86%), and bladder (97.88%). A peer review experience questionnaire was also administered. Results indicated that the program facilitated the acquisition of new skills. Through the implementation of robust QC training and assessment procedures for technology-enabled data curation, our Oncology Data Specialist (ODS)-certified professionals at Syapse ensure data quality in a real-world evidence (RWE) platform. QC reviewers deserve an extensive investment in training and professional development to uphold data quality and support cancer research efforts.