Regular Article
Completeness of data entry in three cancer surgery databases

https://doi.org/10.1053/ejso.2002.1283Get rights and content

Abstract

Aims: Clinical databases are regularly used for audit and research purposes. The accuracy of data input is critical to the value of these tools, but little is known about the factors which influence the completeness of data recording. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influences affecting completeness of data recording in computerized clinical databases of cancer treatment.

Methods: Data omission rates in three databases dealing with management of breast, colorectal and gastro-oesophageal cancers were calculated. The effects of (a) type of record; (b) nature of data and (c) training required to interpret data were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses.

Results: The overall data omission rate was 21.9% (upper GI 27.6%, breast 19.6%, colorectal 32.7%, P=0.13). For different categories of data, omission rates varied from 0% to 55%. Fields requiring a ‘text field’ or ‘numerical’ entry, or containing demographic data, data required for the process of care or data which required no interpretation were associated with low omission rates. Clinical data, and fields requiring a ‘yes/no’ response were associated with high omission rates (45 and 48% respectively). Clinical data and data relating to patient demographic details were independently associated with high and low omission rates respectively (odds ratios for significant missing data 86.9 and 1 respectively).

Conclusion: Clinical data are poorly captured by current cancer surgery databases. Reasons for the poor completion of fields requiring input by clinical staff, particularly availability of time and training, and prioritization of work, should be addressed. Re-design of databases to ensure that data entry is simple and unambiguous may improve accuracy.

References (19)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (32)

  • An empirical study of the antecedents of data completeness in electronic medical records

    2020, International Journal of Information Management
    Citation Excerpt :

    The initial survey instrument was designed and developed following the process suggested by MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Podsakoff (2011). The measure variables for each construct were extracted and revised based on Xiao et al. (2009)’s measurement model and the relevant literature on EMR, data quality, and data completeness (American Academy of Family Physicians, 2017; De Feo & Juran, 2017; Herzberg et al., 2011; Staff et al., 2016; Warsi et al., 2002; Weiskopf et al., 2013; Wixom & Watson, 2001; Wrightson, 2010). To ensure that our results are specific to data completeness as opposed to data quality, the four definitions of data completeness (as presented in Table 1 including documentation, breadth, density, and predictive) as advised by Weiskopf et al. (2013) were utilized as the measure variables to construct data completeness in EMR.

  • An integrated approach to breast diseases and breast cancer registry and research: BDRS as a web-based multi-institutional model

    2007, Computers in Biology and Medicine
    Citation Excerpt :

    Secondly, non-standardized data structures, terminological variations, accuracy and completeness problems reduce the quality and effectiveness of health information. Thirdly, ineffective data collection models lead to accuracy and completeness problems [21]. In most cases clinical practice is separated from data collection.

  • Comparison of data extraction from standardized versus traditional narrative operative reports for database-related research and quality control

    2007, Surgery
    Citation Excerpt :

    However, traditional methods of documentation have been criticized for inadequately reporting key aspects of the surgical procedure. Warsi et al6 analyzed 3 major oncology databases and found that operative details were missing in up to 89% of entries. Furthermore, data labeled as part of “process of care,” such as surgical data, was an independent predictor of missing data (odds ratio, 11.3; P < .0001).

View all citing articles on Scopus
f1

Correspondence to: P. McCulloch, Senior Lecturer and Consultant Upper GI Surgeon, University Hospital Aintree, Longmoor Lane, Liverpool L9 7AL, UK. Tel: 01515295887; Fax: 01515295888; E-mail:[email protected]

View full text