On-line portal for the validation of BCCOM data: results from year one


Year:

Session type:

C. Lagord1, B. Shand2, L. Madras-Purushothaman1, O. Kearins1, J. Rashbass2, G. Rashbass1, A. Hartnett1
1West Midlands Cancer Intelligence Unit, Birmingham, UK, 2Eastern Cancer Registration & Information Centre, Cambridge, UK

Background

The BCCOM audit aims to provide, for all symptomatic breast cancers diagnosed in the UK, data to enable the generation of outcome measures. In 2011 the WMCIU and the ECRIC developed an online BCCOM portal allowing breast surgeons in England and Wales to log in, access, amend and validate their data.

Method

BCCOM Online was built as an extension of the Encore (English National Cancer Online Registration Environment) national cancer registration platform. Breast surgeons were invited to validate the information recorded by cancer registries for patients under their care in 2008. To minimise the risk of disclosure, surgeons could access only their assigned patients.

Results

In June 2011, 361 surgeons were invited to validate their BCCOM data. 242 (67%) of invited surgeons created a BCCOM Online account. Overall 101 surgeons submitted 6,537 validated cases to BCCOM. In March 2012, automatic reports were generated, allowing clinicians to document their current practice and compare it against national averages. Reports were produced for all eligible breast surgeons, whether they had validated their data or not. Lessons learned from BCCOM Online Year 1 will be presented, together with measures of the quality/quantity of information added by clinicians.

Conclusion

Participation to BCCOM was lower than in previous years, with surgeons reporting difficulties in accessing the secure website and lack of time/ resources. It is anticipated that several factors will encourage participation in Year 2:

  • Timeliness: BCCOM Online Year 2 will audit patients diagnosed in 2010.
  • Surgeon-level reports: by the time Year 2 is launched, most surgeons will have downloaded this new BCCOM resource. Whether they use them for revalidation purposes or local audit, ensuring these reports are based on high quality data should become a higher priority for clinicians.
  • Improved guidance will be developed based on feedback received.