Which of the following is an example of an inter-field (or multi-field) edit?

Which of the following is an example of an inter-field (or multi-field) edit?

• A. Identifying a treatment date prior to the diagnosis date
• B. Identifying sex coded differently on multiple primaries
• C. Both treatment date and sex discrepancies
• D. Neither treatment date nor sex discrepancies

Answer: (A)

The correct response is identifying a treatment date prior to the diagnosis date. This represents an inter-field edit because it involves a logical inconsistency between two related fields: the treatment date and the diagnosis date. In cancer registries, certain pieces of information must be chronologically consistent, as treatment cannot occur before a definitive diagnosis is made. Therefore, if a treatment date is recorded as occurring before the diagnosis date, it highlights a potential error that warrants further investigation. While the other options may indicate discrepancies or errors, they do not represent inter-field edits in the same way. For instance, identifying sex coded differently on multiple primaries involves examining the same field (sex) across different records or cases, thus it may signify an internal issue but not an relationship between distinct fields within the same record. This reinforces the importance of accurate data entry and the need for registrars to ensure that related fields maintain consistent and logical relationships.

The correct response is identifying a treatment date prior to the diagnosis date. This represents an inter-field edit because it involves a logical inconsistency between two related fields: the treatment date and the diagnosis date. In cancer registries, certain pieces of information must be chronologically consistent, as treatment cannot occur before a definitive diagnosis is made. Therefore, if a treatment date is recorded as occurring before the diagnosis date, it highlights a potential error that warrants further investigation.

While the other options may indicate discrepancies or errors, they do not represent inter-field edits in the same way. For instance, identifying sex coded differently on multiple primaries involves examining the same field (sex) across different records or cases, thus it may signify an internal issue but not an relationship between distinct fields within the same record. This reinforces the importance of accurate data entry and the need for registrars to ensure that related fields maintain consistent and logical relationships.