» Articles » PMID: 32386523

Implementation and Quality Assessment of a Clinical Orthopaedic Registry in a Public Hospital Department

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Health Services
Date 2020 May 11
PMID 32386523
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to demonstrate a novel method of assessing data quality for an orthopaedic registry and its effects on data quality metrics.

Methods: A quality controlled clinical patient registry was implemented, comprising six observational cohorts of shoulder and knee pathologies. Data collection procedures were co-developed with clinicians and administrative staff in accordance with the relevant dataset and organised into the registry database software. Quality metrics included completeness, consistency and validity. Data were extracted at scheduled intervals (3 months) and quality metrics reported to stakeholders of the registry.

Results: The first patient was enrolled in July 2017 and the data extracted for analysis over 4 quarters, with the last audit in August 2018 (N = 189). Auditing revealed registry completeness was 100% after registry deficiencies were addressed. However, cohort completeness was less accurate, ranging from 12 to 13% for height & weight to 90-100% for operative variables such as operating surgeon, consulting surgeon and hospital. Consistency and internal validation improved to 100% after issues in registry processes were rectified.

Conclusions: A novel method to assess data quality in a clinical orthopaedic registry identified process shortfalls and improved data quality over time. Real-time communication, a comprehensive data framework and an integrated feedback loop were necessary to ensure adequate quality assurance. This model can be replicated in other registries and serve as a useful quality control tool to improve registry quality and ensure applicability of the data to aid clinical decisions, especially in newly implemented registries.

Trial Registration: ACTRN12617001161314; registration date 8/08/2017. Retrospectively registered.

Citing Articles

Development and evaluation of a customized checklist to assess the quality control of disease registry systems of Tehran, the capital of Iran in 2021.

Barzin M, Sabbaghi H, Kamfar S, Seifi A, Hajipour M, Hadavand Siri F BMC Health Serv Res. 2023; 23(1):726.

PMID: 37403074 PMC: 10320996. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-023-09605-2.


Quality registry improves the data of chronic ulcers: Validation of Tampere Wound Registry.

Poyry A, Kimpimaki T, Kaartinen I, Salmi T Int Wound J. 2023; 20(9):3750-3759.

PMID: 37293796 PMC: 10588319. DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14270.


Providing a Population Based Registry Model of Drug Poisoning in Iran.

Sabahi A, Asadi F, Rabiei R, Paydar S Iran J Pharm Res. 2023; 21(1):e130124.

PMID: 36937211 PMC: 10016136. DOI: 10.5812/ijpr-130124.

References
1.
Fender D, Harper W, Gregg P . The Trent regional arthroplasty study. Experiences with a hip register. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000; 82(7):944-7. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.82b7.10762. View

2.
Hammer G, du Prel J, Blettner M . Avoiding bias in observational studies: part 8 in a series of articles on evaluation of scientific publications. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2009; 106(41):664-8. PMC: 2780010. DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2009.0664. View

3.
Seagrave K, Naylor J, Armstrong E, Leong K, Descallar J, Harris I . Data quality audit of the arthroplasty clinical outcomes registry NSW. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014; 14:512. PMC: 4247213. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-014-0512-6. View

4.
Arts D, de Keizer N, Scheffer G . Defining and improving data quality in medical registries: a literature review, case study, and generic framework. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2002; 9(6):600-11. PMC: 349377. DOI: 10.1197/jamia.m1087. View

5.
Bautista M, Bonilla G, Mieth K, Llinas A, Rodriguez F, Cardenas L . Data Quality in Institutional Arthroplasty Registries: Description of a Model of Validation and Report of Preliminary Results. J Arthroplasty. 2017; 32(7):2065-2069. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.02.030. View