Electronic Medical Record Inaccuracies: Multicenter Analysis of Challenges with Modified Lung Cancer Screening Criteria.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network expanded their lung cancer screening (LCS) criteria to comprise one additional clinical risk factor, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The electronic medical record (EMR) is a source of clinical information that could identify high-risk populations for LCS, including a diagnosis of COPD; however, an unsubstantiated COPD diagnosis in the EMR may lead to inappropriate LCS referrals. We aimed to detect the prevalence of unsubstantiated COPD diagnosis in the EMR for LCS referrals, to determine the efficacy of utilizing the EMR as an accurate population-based eligibility screening "trigger" using modified clinical criteria. We performed a multicenter review of all individuals referred to three LCS programs from 2012 to 2015. Each individual's EMR was searched for COPD diagnostic terms and the presence of a diagnostic pulmonary functionality test (PFT). An unsubstantiated COPD diagnosis was defined by an individual's EMR containing a COPD term with no PFTs present, or the presence of PFTs without evidence of obstruction. A total of 2834 referred individuals were identified, of which 30% (840/2834) had a COPD term present in their EMR. Of these, 68% (571/840) were considered unsubstantiated diagnoses: 86% (489/571) due to absent PFTs and 14% (82/571) due to PFTs demonstrating no evidence of postbronchodilation obstruction. A large proportion of individuals referred for LCS may have an unsubstantiated COPD diagnosis within their EMR. Thus, utilizing the EMR as a population-based eligibility screening tool, employing expanded criteria, may lead to individuals being referred, potentially, inappropriately for LCS.

Variability in invasive mediastinal staging for lung cancer: A multicenter regional study.

OBJECTIVE: Prior studies have reported underuse of-but not variability in-invasive mediastinal staging in the pretreatment evaluation of patients with lung cancer. We sought to compare rates of invasive mediastinal staging for lung cancer across hospitals participating in a regional quality improvement and research collaborative. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study (2011-2013) of patients undergoing resected lung cancer from the Surgical Clinical Outcomes and Assessment Program in Washington State. Invasive mediastinal staging included mediastinoscopy and/or endobronchial/esophageal ultrasound-guided nodal aspiration. We used a mixed-effects model to mitigate the influence of small sample sizes at any 1 hospital on rates of invasive staging and to adjust for hospital-level differences in the frequency of clinical stage IA disease. RESULTS: A total of 406 patients (mean age, 68 years; 69% clinical stage IA; and 67% lobectomy) underwent resection at 5 hospitals (4 community and 1 academic). Invasive staging occurred in 66% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 61%-71%). CI inspection revealed that 2 hospitals performed invasive staging significantly more often than the overall average (94%, [95% CI, 89%-96%] and 84% [95% CI, 78%-88%]), whereas 2 hospitals performed invasive staging significantly less often than overall average (31% [95% CI, 21%-44%] and 17% [95% CI, 7%-36%]). CONCLUSIONS: Rates of invasive mediastinal staging varied significantly across hospitals providing surgical care for patients with lung cancer. Future studies that aim to understand the reasons underlying variability in care may inform quality improvement initiatives or lead to the development of novel staging algorithms.