There are two types of casefinding methods used by registries:
active and passive.
Active casefinding: involves
registry personnel retrieving all source documents (such
as disease indices, pathology reports, etc.). These
documents are then screened to identify reportable cases.
The benefit of active casefinding procedures is that
this method is more thorough and accurate than passive
casefinding. Registry personnel have
|
|
knowledge of criteria and terminology to recognize reportable
cases. Review of each casefinding source requires additional
processing time by the registry staff. The registry may lack
the staff and financial resources necessary to allow registry
personnel to actively review all potential casefinding sources.
|
Passive casefinding: is when other departments
notify the registrar of potentially reportable cases.
A concern with passive casefinding is that non-registry
staff are not as familiar with reporting criteria and
terminology, so potential cases may be missed or incomplete
casefinding may occur.
|
For example, non-registry staff could miss the collection of
cases with diagnostic terms that may not sound cancerous (such
as linitis
plastica or Waldenstrom's
macroglobulinemia, or even leukemias and lymphomas).
A combination of active and passive casefinding is a commonly
used system in registries today. The registrar must identify
the critical casefinding sources that require active review
by the registrar, decide the amount of passive case identification
that should be performed, and determine which departments
can provide high-quality casefinding information. An effective
combination of active and passive reporting methods ensures
more complete cases and reduces labor costs of the registry.
![Back to Top](images/icon_back_to_top.gif)
|