PhysiciansÃ¢ÂÂ Assessment of Cancer Comorbidity Collection Methods: A Qualitative AnalysisStoner BP1*, Chandler-Ezell K2, Biswas B3, Kallogjeri D4 and Piccirillo JF4
- *Corresponding Author:
- Stoner BP
Department of Anthropology and Division of Infectious Diseases
Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
E-mail: [email protected]
Received date: June 11, 2017; Accepted date: June 26, 2017; Published date: June 30, 2017
Citation: Stoner BP, Chandler-Ezell K, Biswas B, Kallogjeri D, Piccirillo JF (2017) Physicians’ Assessment of Cancer Comorbidity Collection Methods: A Qualitative Analysis. J Oncol Med & Pract 2: 112..
Copyright: © 2017 Stoner BP, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Objective: We conducted a qualitative assessment of oncologists’ preferences for comorbidity capture methods comparing the ICD-9 claims-based approach to the Adult Comorbidity Evaluation-27 (ACE-27) record abstraction approach. Materials and Methods: Building upon theoretical foundations in anthropology, we developed a qualitative methodology to elicit the thoughts and reactions of 21 practicing oncologists about their preferences for claims-based vs. record-abstraction methods of capturing comorbidity. Grounded theory approach was used to identify recurring themes and dominant concerns expressed by multiple respondents. Codes were developed and applied in two phases: initial and focused. Results: Thematic analysis of qualitative interviews revealed five key domains of concern: accuracy, specificity, utility, robustness and the ease of use of the information for clinical decision-making. There was a strong preference among physician respondents for comorbidity information captured through chart abstraction methods such as the ACE-27. Most respondents felt that claims-based comorbidity data, although easy to capture in the process of billing and coding medical encounters, generally lacked a level of specificity and robustness, thereby rendering the information less clinically useful. Conclusion: For complex, chronic conditions, claims-based comorbidity was seen by respondents as superficial, nonspecific and at times inaccurate in which case medical record abstraction data would be preferred.