alexa Physicians’ Assessment of Cancer Comorbidity

Journal of Oncology Medicine & Practice
Open Access

Like us on:
OMICS International organises 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events every year across USA, Europe & Asia with support from 1000 more scientific Societies and Publishes 700+ Open Access Journals which contains over 50000 eminent personalities, reputed scientists as editorial board members.

Open Access Journals gaining more Readers and Citations

700 Journals and 15,000,000 Readers Each Journal is getting 25,000+ Readers

This Readership is 10 times more when compared to other Subscription Journals (Source: Google Analytics)

Research Article

Physicians’ Assessment of Cancer Comorbidity Collection Methods: A Qualitative Analysis

Stoner BP1*, Chandler-Ezell K2, Biswas B3, Kallogjeri D4 and Piccirillo JF4

1Department of Anthropology and Division of Infectious Diseases, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA

2Department of Social and Cultural Analysis, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas, USA

3School of Social Work, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, Washington, USA

4Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA

*Corresponding Author:
Stoner BP
Department of Anthropology and Division of Infectious Diseases
Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
Tel: +1(314)922-2906
Fax +1(314)935-8535
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.

 

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Share This Page

Additional Info

Loading
Loading Please wait..
Peer Reviewed Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

 
© 2008-2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version
adwords