CCR Innovations | Volume 2 | Issue 1 - page 13

13 
California Cancer Registry
Volume 3, Issue 1
Marilyn Scocozza, CTR
*
ScoƩ Wood, BA
*
Jenna Mazreku, CTR
*
Mary Brant, BA, CTR
*
Business Analyst 
Programmer Analyst Senior Systems Analyst  
Business Analyst 
* California Cancer ReporƟng and Epidemiologic Surveillance (CalCARES)  
   Program InsƟtute for PopulaƟon Health Improvement  
   UC Davis Health System 

EDIT ERRORS ON FILE UPLOAD: Use of Report Analysis to Improve Data Quality  
‐ Jenna Mazreku, CTR  

Background:
 In an effort to improve data quality, the PAQC unit of the CalCARES began a 
focused analysis of edit errors idenƟfied when admission level abstracts are uploaded into 
Eureka, our integrated cancer database management system. The targeted months used in 
this analysis were August, September, and October of 2013. The Edit Errors on File Upload 
Summary report was uƟlized to capture these edit errors and provide documentaƟon for 
how many iniƟal edits are received on an admission. 

ObjecƟve:
The primary goal of this analysis was to find a strong business soluƟon that 
would meet central and regional registry needs. The PAQC unit also looked for new 
opportuniƟes for automaƟon and target areas in need of educaƟon. Focus was also put on 
how the exisƟng Edit Errors on File Upload report could be improved for ease of use. 

Click
here
 to view poster. 

AN AUDIT OF GENDER CODES FOR GENDER SPECIFIC CANCERS ‐ California’s Results
– Mary Brant, BA, CTR 

Background:
 In the summer of 2013, one of the SEER regional cancer registries in 
California, the Cancer Registry of Greater California (CRGC), conducted a mini‐reliability 
study as part of the ComparaƟve EffecƟveness Research (CER) project for the Centers for 
Disease Control and PrevenƟon (CDC). CRGC reviewed their prostate cancer cases and 
idenƟfied that the sex field (gender) was oŌen coded to “9” unknown. They assumed code 
9 may be a default code in the direct entry screens, and a request was submiƩed to the 
California Cancer Registry (CCR) trouble Ɵcket system to change the default. The PAQC Unit 
at the central registry invesƟgated CRGC’s findings and made the decision to expand the 
original analysis to a statewide audit which would include both male and female organ 
cancer. Cases from each of the three California SEER regions were included in the audit 
(Region 1/8‐Cancer PrevenƟon InsƟtute of California; Region 9‐Cancer Surveillance 
Program; and CRGC‐Regions 2, 3,4,5,6 and 7/10. 

ObjecƟve:
Determine the confidence level of the quality of gender data in the Eureka DMS 
data base. Determine if an edit could be created or modified to disallow code “9” for 
gender specific cancers. 

Click
here
 to view poster.
1...,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 14,15