What approach to casefinding involves registrars reviewing critical casefinding sources while other departments review less critical sources?

The approach that involves registrars reviewing critical casefinding sources while other departments handle less critical sources is a combination of active and passive casefinding.

Active casefinding is characterized by direct involvement from registrars, who proactively seek out and review specific, high-priority sources of data, such as pathology reports and surgical records. This ensures that important and relevant cases are captured efficiently and accurately for registry purposes. On the other hand, passive casefinding involves relying on other departments or less stringent sources of information to identify cases, which are typically reviewed for completeness and accuracy after the initial identification.

By integrating both active and passive methods, registrars can utilize their expertise to prioritize the most critical cases while ensuring that all potential cases are captured through the passive efforts of other departments. This dual approach maximizes the comprehensiveness and reliability of the data collected in the cancer registry, enabling better surveillance and reporting of cancer incidence and outcomes.