Technical note on the calculation of the baseline for the Detect Cancer Early HEAT target
This technical note details the rationale behind the choice of data source for, and method of calculation of, the basleine for the Detect Cancer Early HEAT target.
Annex A
Cancer registration |
Cancer audit |
|
---|---|---|
History |
Longstanding - since late 1950s |
More recent - last 10-15 years |
Scope |
All malignant neoplasms, carcinoma in situ, neoplasms of uncertain behaviour, benign tumours of brain and CNS |
Selected major cancers (and in some cases selected histologies at any given anatomical site) |
Population covered |
Population-based. Includes cancers arising in elderly who die very soon after hospital admission, patients treated in private hospitals or outside Scotland (as long as Scottish residents), patients diagnosed at autopsy. |
Centred around multidisciplinary teams. Unlikely to include cancers arising in elderly who die very soon after hospital admission, patients treated in private hospitals or outside Scotland (as long as Scottish residents), patients diagnosed at autopsy. |
Data set |
Limited and relatively stable over time. Partly focused on international population-based comparisons of cancer incidence and survival. |
More extensive, very tumour-specific and clinically orientated, and less likely to remain stable over time. Not particularly geared towards international comparisons. |
Data uses |
Multiple, including public health surveillance, planning services, monitoring and evaluation of interventions such as primary prevention and screening programmes, epidemiological and health services research, support for genetic counselling, data to support health promotion campaigns, etc. |
Primarily focused on monitoring quality of clinical care. More recently for monitoring stage of disease. Theoretically could be used for health services research. |
Data credibility |
Thought to be reasonably high internationally, supported by routine indicators of data quality and ad hoc studies of data quality. May have less credibility with some clinicians. |
May have greater sense of credibility among clinicians due to local involvement in data collection (by some, at least). |
Contact
Email: Sara Conroy
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback