CCR Innovations | Volume 2 | Issue 1 - page 2

California Cancer Registry
Volume 2, Issue 1
The PAQC Unit Gender Au
dit also identified that 127 (77.4 percent) of the 164 cases evaluated were
coded incorrectly. There w
ere 77 (47.0 percent) that did not have text documentation to support the
code, which also accounts for 60.6 percent of the 127 discrepant cases. The remaining 50 (39.4
percent) cases that were discrepant were due to one of the two following scenarios:
1. The case was coded to 9 (unknown) with text
documentation of a specific gender.
2. The code that was provided in the case did not
match the text documentation.
The chief outcome of this gender audit analysis is the significance of text documentation. Text
documentation is what validates the codes entered by the abstractor. Per Volume I, Sections I.1.6.3
and IV.1.1, as well as the previously distributed memo by the Data Standards Quality Control Unit
(DSQC Memo 2011-02), all codes must be supported by text documentation on an abstract and the
text must be entered in a clear and concise manner. An audit discrepancy results if a code is not
supported by documentation in an abstract. Since this audit was performed, an edit was added to the
North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR) Edit Metafile to identify an error
when gender specific cancers are coded to “unknown” for gender. This type of edit error can be
avoided by ensuring that gender is documented in text.
Mary Brant, BA, CTR
Analyst IV
California Cancer Reporting and Epidemiologic Surveillance (CalCARES) Program
Institute for Population Health Improvement
UC Davis Health System
1 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,...14