Cancer registry integration finds reportable cases in your clinical data, supports the abstraction workflow, and submits standard-format records to your state registry with edits and corrections handled. It moves and validates data. It does not abstract, stage a cancer, or decide that a case is reportable.
Cancer registry work is done by certified abstractors reading charts, and the software around them is usually a case-finding list from 2011 plus a spreadsheet of rejected records. The registrar’s time is the scarce resource. Taction builds integration that spends less of it on finding cases and resolving edits, and none of it on work the software should have caught.
Our experts are ready to understand your business goals.
Registry integration covers four things: identifying candidate cases from pathology, coding, and clinical feeds; supporting abstraction with the source documents in one place; producing standard-format submission records; and resolving the edits your state registry returns. It sits inside a wider healthcare integration programme and shares foundations with our clinical registry development work. The distinguishing constraint is that abstraction itself is certified human work, and the software’s job is to remove everything around it that is not. Everything we build is aimed at that: less searching, less rework, and no claim to do the abstractor’s job.
Candidate cases are identified from pathology reports, ICD-10 coding, disease indices, and clinical feeds. Case finding produces a suspense list for registrar review rather than a reportability decision. Registrars decide reportability themselves.
Source documents, prior records, and coded data are assembled for the abstractor in one view. Document assembly is where registrar time is recovered, since the abstraction itself cannot be shortcut.
Submission records are produced in the standard layout your state registry requires for its current version. Layout conformance changes between versions and is treated as recurring maintenance. Validation runs before transmission, not after.
Registries return edit failures that must be investigated and resubmitted. Edits resolution becomes a tracked worklist with reasons grouped so patterns are visible. Resubmission state is tracked through to final acknowledgement each time.
Registries require ongoing follow-up on vital status and subsequent treatment. Follow-up capture draws on existing clinical and administrative feeds wherever it legitimately can. Vital status sources vary in timeliness and completeness by state.
It does not abstract a case, assign a stage, determine reportability, or code a tumour. Those determinations belong to certified registrars and the physicians involved in the case. Suggestions are reviewed, never applied.
The work that recovers registrar capacity is unglamorous: better case finding with fewer false positives, source documents assembled automatically, and edits grouped by cause rather than listed individually. We build those first. Coded data quality underpins all of it, which is why terminology work and our clinical data integration practice sit at the centre of the build rather than at the edges of it. Case finding rules stay in registrar hands so false positive volume can be tuned by the people who work the list, rather than through a change request to us.
Feeds from pathology, coding, radiology, and disease indices with configurable inclusion rules. Rule configuration stays with your registrars so they can tune false positive volume themselves. Feed timeliness is monitored alongside rule accuracy.
Pathology, operative, imaging, and treatment documents linked to each candidate case automatically. Automatic assembly removes the chart hunting that consumes a large share of abstraction time. Missing documents are flagged rather than silently omitted.
Histology, topography, and treatment coding supported with SNOMED CT and coding system mappings. Coding support presents candidates for registrar selection rather than assigning codes itself. Every coded value in a submitted record is registrar-selected.
Standard-format record generation, validation against registry rules before sending, and transmission with acknowledgement. Pre-submission validation catches most edits before the registry does. Acknowledgement processing distinguishes a sent file from an accepted one.
Returned edits queued with reasons, ageing, ownership, and grouping by cause. Pattern grouping turns fifty individual rejections into three fixable upstream problems. Ageing is visible, so nothing sits unresolved for a reporting cycle.
Expedited identification and reporting where your registry or a study requires faster notification. Expedited paths run alongside routine submission rather than replacing it. Notification timelines are set by the requesting registry or study protocol.
We publish no figures on case completeness, abstraction throughput, or edit rates, because those depend entirely on your case volume, your documentation practice, and your registry’s rules. What we deliver is instrumentation so your team measures impact against its own data. The benefit is registrar capacity: less time finding cases, less time hunting documents, less time reworking edits one at a time. Abstraction quality remains a function of your registrars’ expertise, which no software improves. We would rather describe recovered registrar capacity honestly than publish a completeness figure that belongs to your programme.
Tunable case finding rules reduce candidates that were never reportable. Rule tuning by registrars is the only way false positive volume comes down sustainably. Volume is reported weekly so tuning happens on evidence.
Each candidate arrives with its pathology, operative, and treatment documents linked. Pre-assembled evidence is the largest single time saving available in this workflow. Registrars start reading rather than start searching for the pathology report.
Rejections are analysed together rather than resolved individually. Cause grouping shows which upstream data problem produced most of the batch. Fixing an upstream feed usually removes a whole class of rejections.
Records are checked against registry rules before transmission. Pre-validation shifts effort from rework to prevention, which is where it costs least. Most edit categories can be caught locally with the registry’s own rules.
Every record’s state is visible from generation through acknowledgement. Submission state replaces the assumption that a sent file was an accepted file. Acknowledgements are reconciled rather than assumed to have arrived.
Abstraction is certified human work and remains the rate limit. Registrar capacity is the constraint, and software that claims to abstract for you is misrepresenting itself. We say that plainly in proposals.
We start with your current case finding and edit history, because those two datasets tell us where the capacity is going. Discovery is paid and time-boxed and produces an itemised fixed-scope estimate with an honest build or configure recommendation. If your existing registry software covers submission adequately and the problem is case finding or document assembly, we scope only that. Delivery runs in short increments with your registrars using working software from the first one. Your registrars work every increment, because they are the only accurate source on how this job is really done.
We review current suspense volume, false positive rate, and the last year of returned edits. Edit history usually identifies a small number of recurring upstream causes. That analysis is often the most valuable output.
Pathology, coding, radiology, and treatment feeds assessed for availability, structure, and timeliness. Feed quality determines what case finding can honestly achieve. Feeds arrive through our HL7 integration work where interfaces are needed.
Inclusion rules, exclusions, and priority designed with the people who will work the list. Registrar ownership of rules is a design constraint rather than a nicety. Priority ordering matters as much as inclusion logic.
Case finding, document assembly, record generation, and pre-submission validation delivered in increments. Validation rules track your registry’s current version explicitly. Layout versions are configurable, since your registry will change them again.
We work through your state registry’s test and submission process with your team. Registry cycles run on their calendar, and we sequence around them. Their test queue length is outside our control entirely.
Live running with edit tracking, then handover covering rule editing and layout version maintenance. Version maintenance is documented as recurring operational work. A named owner tracks layout and edit rule releases afterwards.
We build to the standard record layout and edit rules your state registry publishes for its current version, with clinical data arriving through our EHR and EMR integration services. Compliance covers HIPAA safeguards, state cancer reporting law, and clear allocation of every determination to a qualified person. Accreditation programme requirements are referenced as market context: we build software that supports your programme, and we make no claim of accreditation, certification, or endorsement on anyone’s behalf. Where a registry’s edit rules and your clinical data disagree, we surface the conflict rather than forcing a value through.
Record layouts and edit metafiles change between versions, and conformance is tested against your registry’s current release. Version tracking is an operational duty with a named owner. Changes arrive on their schedule.
Reportability, staging, histology coding, and abstraction are registrar and physician determinations. The software presents candidates and evidence and decides none of it. No submitted value originates from software rather than from a person.
We do not build systems that abstract or stage cases. Suggestion is permitted, decision is not, and every suggested value is reviewed and selected by a certified registrar. That limit is contractual.
Finding rates are reported by subgroup so systematic under-ascertainment becomes visible. Completeness gaps by population are treated as a data quality gate, not a reporting footnote. Findings are reviewed with your programme leadership.
Registry data reused for research runs under separate approvals and access control. Purpose separation is enforced architecturally rather than by policy statement. Research access is granted separately and logged against its own approval.
Submitted records, corrections, and resubmissions are retained with full history. Submission audit supports registry review and internal quality assurance years later. Corrections are additive, so the original submission remains inspectable afterwards.
We have been building healthcare software since 2013, which is over 12 years, and we have delivered more than 200 healthcare projects. Registry and interface engineering are established practice here, and we built our own EHR platform, Voyant Health, so clinical feeds and document handling are familiar ground. We are ISO 27001 certified, our leadership brings more than 20 years of personal experience in the field, and we work from four US offices in Chicago, Cheyenne, Austin, and Sacramento. We will also tell you when your existing registry software covers the submission side adequately.
Case finding, record generation, validation, and edits handling are work we have done. Edits worklists are included in scope rather than discovered as a gap later. Grouping by cause is built in from the start.
Rules and worklists are designed with your registrars using real suspense lists. Their involvement is a delivery condition, because they are the only accurate source on this workflow. Their suspense list is the specification.
Building Voyant Health means we understand pathology feeds, document structures, and how clinical data actually arrives rather than how it should. Narrative pathology and structured pathology are handled as different problems entirely.
Taction is ISO 27001 certified, with documented access control, encryption, and change control that stands up to a customer security review. Access to registry data is role-based, logged, and reviewed on a cadence.
We refuse to claim automated abstraction. That honesty loses deals to vendors who imply it and protects your programme’s data quality and accreditation standing. The limit appears in our proposals in writing.
Four US offices in Chicago, Cheyenne, Austin, and Sacramento, with delivery overlapping your working hours during registry test cycles, and escalation reaching a named delivery lead rather than a shared support queue.
Cancer registry integration pricing turns on feed count and quality, whether submission is in scope alongside case finding, and how many facilities report. The tiers below cover engineering. Third-party licensing, cloud infrastructure, data subscriptions, and hardware are separate from engineering cost and itemised clearly. Where you license commercial registry software or coding reference products, those subscriptions are vendor costs we quote as line items rather than absorbing into a build figure. Where your registry requires specific software or file transfer arrangements, those costs sit with them and we flag the requirement early.
$40,000 to $80,000 for case finding with source document assembly and a registrar worklist at one facility, without submission generation. One facility, case finding only, using feeds that already exist today.
$80,000 to $200,000 for case finding, abstraction support, standard-format submission with pre-validation, edits worklist, and follow-up data capture. This tier covers most single-facility cancer programmes we are asked to scope.
Starting at $200,000 for multi-facility programmes with consolidated workload management, several registry submissions, research access controls, and expedited reporting paths. Facility count and research access requirements drive the figure more than case volume.
A paid, time-boxed discovery phase produces a case finding and edit audit, feed assessment, build or configure recommendation, and an itemised fixed-scope estimate. The edit analysis is yours whether or not we build.
Feed count and structure, facility count, registry version, and pathology report structure. Unstructured pathology raises case finding cost more than case volume does. Narrative reporting shifts the burden back onto registrar reading time.
Budget annually for layout version updates, edit rule changes, feed maintenance, and regression testing. Version changes arrive on the registry’s schedule, and we treat that maintenance as scheduled work rather than as incidents.
If you cannot say how many of last year’s edits shared a common cause, start with an audit. A paid discovery phase gives you a review of suspense volume and false positive rate, an analysis of a year of returned edits grouped by cause, a feed quality assessment, a build or configure recommendation, and an itemised fixed-scope estimate. If your existing registry software covers submission and only case finding needs work, we scope that alone. Talk to our team about your feeds and your registrar capacity.
These are the questions cancer programme managers, registrars, and informatics leads raise before scoping this work. Several concern a boundary we hold firmly: the software supports abstraction and never performs it. Others concern where the time actually goes, which the edit and suspense audit answers directly. Where a question depends on your state registry’s current version or your pathology reporting structure, discovery resolves it quickly and the audit is worth having regardless. We would rather lose a deal to a vendor promising automated abstraction than put your programme’s data quality and accreditation standing at risk.
No, and we will not build it to. Abstraction is certified professional work involving judgement across documents, and reportability and staging are determinations for registrars and physicians. The software can surface candidates, assemble evidence, and suggest coded values for selection, and every value that reaches a submitted record is chosen by a person.
Our clinical registry development work covers building registries themselves: data models, capture, governance, and analysis for a condition or device. This page covers integration with statutory cancer registries: case finding from your feeds, standard-format submission, and edits resolution against a state registry’s published rules and version.
In most programmes, finding cases and hunting documents, then reworking returned edits one at a time. That is why we audit your suspense volume and a year of edits before proposing anything, and why document assembly usually delivers more recovered capacity than any other single change.
We make no claim on a figure. Better case finding across more feeds usually surfaces cases that manual review missed, and we report finding rates by subgroup so systematic gaps become visible. Whether completeness improves depends on your feeds, your rules, and your registrars’ capacity to work the resulting list.
We build software that supports your programme’s reporting and documentation needs, and we work to the requirements your programme staff give us. We are not an accreditation body, we hold no endorsement, and we make no claim that using our software confers or maintains any accreditation status.
It becomes maintenance work, and we scope it that way from the start. Layout versions and edit metafiles change on the registry’s schedule, so version tracking has a named owner, validation rules are versioned, and the annual support budget assumes this happens rather than treating it as an incident.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Our expert reaches out shortly after receiving your request and analyzing your requirements.
If needed, we sign an NDA to protect your privacy.
We request additional information to better understand and analyze your project.
We schedule a call to discuss your project, goals. and priorities, and provide preliminary feedback.
If you're satisfied, we finalize the agreement and start your project.