Development, implementation, and evaluation of the Australian Stroke Data Tool (AuSDaT): Comprehensive data capturing for multiple uses

BACKGROUND

Historically, national programs for collecting stroke data in Australia required the use of multiple online tools. Clinicians were required to enter overlapping variables for the same patient in the different databases. From 2013 to 2016, the Australian Stroke Data Tool (AuSDaT) was built as an integrated data management solution.

OBJECTIVE

In this article, we have described the development, implementation, and evaluation phases of establishing the AuSDaT.

METHOD

In the development phase, a governance structure with representatives from different data collection programs was established. Harmonisation of data variables, drawn from six programs used in hospitals for monitoring stroke care, was facilitated through creating a National Stroke Data Dictionary. The implementation phase involved a staged deployment for two national programs over 12 months. The evaluation included an online survey of people who had used the AuSDaT between March 2018 and May 2018.

RESULTS

By July 2016, data entered for an individual patient was, for the first time, shared between national programs. Overall, 119/422 users (90% female, 61% aged 30-49 years, 57% nurses) completed the online evaluation survey. The two most positive features reported about the AuSDaT were (i) accessibility of the system (including simultaneous user access), and (ii) the ability to download reports to benchmark local data against peer hospitals or national performance. More than three quarters of respondents (n = 92, 77%) reported overall satisfaction with the data collection tool.

CONCLUSION

The AuSDaT reduces duplication and enables users from different national programs for stroke to enter standardised data into a single system.

IMPLICATIONS

This example may assist others who seek to establish a harmonised data management solution for different disease areas where multiple programs of data collection exist. The importance of undertaking continuous evaluation of end-users to identify preferences and aspects of the tool that are not meeting current requirements were illustrated. We also highlighted the opportunities to increase interoperability, utility, and facilitate the exchange of accurate and meaningful data.

Longitudinal study of patients' health-related quality of life using EQ-5D-3L in 11 Swedish National Quality Registers

OBJECTIVE

To compare problems reported in the five EQ-5D-3L dimensions and EQ VAS scores at baseline and at 1-year follow-up among different patient groups and specific diagnoses in 11 National Quality Registers (NQRs) and to compare these with the general population.

DESIGN

Longitudinal, descriptive study.

PARTICIPANTS

2 66 241 patients from 11 NQRs and 49 169 participants from the general population were included in the study.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Proportions of problems reported in the five EQ-5D-3L dimensions, EQ VAS scores of participants' own health and proportions of participants and mean/median EQ VAS score in the Paretian Classification of Health Change (PCHC) categories.

RESULTS

In most of the included registers, and the general population, problems with pain/discomfort were the most frequently reported at baseline and at 1-year follow-up. Mean EQ VAS score (SD) ranged from 45.2 (22.4) among disc hernia patients to 88.1 (15.3) in wrist and hand fracture patients at baseline. They ranged from 48.9 (20.9) in pulmonary fibrosis patients to 83.3 (17.4) in wrist and hand fracture patients at follow-up. The improved category of PCHC, improvement in at least one dimension without deterioration in any other, accounted for the highest proportion in several diagnoses, corresponding with highest improvement in mean EQ VAS score.

CONCLUSIONS

The study documented self-reported health of several different patient groups using the EQ-5D-3L in comparing with the general population. This demonstrated the important role of patient-reported outcomes in routine clinical care, to assess and follow-up health status and progress within different groups of patients. The EQ-5D-3L descriptive system and EQ VAS have an important role in providing a 'common denominator', allowing comparisons across NQRs and specific diagnoses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04359628).

Are clinicians using routinely collected data to drive practice improvement? A cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Clinical registry participation is a measure of healthcare quality. Limited knowledge exists on Australian hospitals' participation in clinical registries and whether this registry data informs quality improvement initiatives.

OBJECTIVE

To identify participation in clinical registries, determine if registry data inform quality improvement initiatives, and identify registry participation enablers and clinicians' educational needs to improve use of registry data to drive practice change.

METHODS

A self-administered survey was distributed to staff coordinating registries in seven hospitals in New South Wales, Australia. Eligible registries were international-, national- and state-based clinical, condition-/disease-specific and device/product registries.

RESULTS

Response rate was 70% (97/139). Sixty-two (64%) respondents contributed data to 46 eligible registries. Registry reports were most often received by nurses (61%) and infrequently by hospital executives (8.4%). Less than half used registry data 'always' or 'often' to influence practice improvement (48%) and care pathways (49%). Protected time for data collection (87%) and benchmarking (79%) were 'very likely' or 'likely' to promote continued participation. Over half 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that clinical practice improvement training (79%) and evidence-practice gap identification (77%) would optimize use of registry data.

CONCLUSIONS

Registry data are generally only visible to local speciality units and not routinely used to inform quality improvement. Centralized on-going registry funding, accessible and transparent integrated information systems combined with data informed improvement science education could be first steps to promote quality data-driven clinical improvement initiatives.

Can feedback approaches reduce unwarranted clinical variation? A systematic rapid evidence synthesis

Background

Assessment of clinical variation has attracted increasing interest in health systems internationally due to growing awareness about better value and appropriate health care as a mechanism for enhancing efficient, effective and timely care. Feedback using administrative databases to provide benchmarking data has been utilised in several countries to explore clinical care variation and to enhance guideline adherent care. Whilst methods for detecting variation are well-established, methods for determining variation that is unwarranted and addressing this are strongly debated. This study aimed to synthesize published evidence of the use of feedback approaches to address unwarranted clinical variation (UCV).

Methods

A rapid review and narrative evidence synthesis was undertaken as a policy-focused review to understand how feedback approaches have been applied to address UCV specifically. Key words, synonyms and subject headings were used to search the major electronic databases Medline and PubMed between 2000 and 2018. Titles and abstracts of publications were screened by two reviewers and independently checked by a third reviewer. Full text articles were screened against the eligibility criteria. Key findings were extracted and integrated in a narrative synthesis.

Results

Feedback approaches that occurred over a duration of 1 month to 9 years to address clinical variation emerged from 27 publications with quantitative (20), theoretical/conceptual/descriptive work (4) and mixed or multi-method studies (3). Approaches ranged from presenting evidence to individuals, teams and organisations, to providing facilitated tailored feedback supported by a process of ongoing dialogue to enable change. Feedback approaches identified primarily focused on changing clinician decision-making and behaviour. Providing feedback to clinicians was identified, in a range of a settings, as associated with changes in variation such as reducing overuse of tests and treatments, reducing variations in optimal patient clinical outcomes and increasing guideline or protocol adherence.

Conclusions

The review findings suggest value in the use of feedback approaches to respond to clinical variation and understand when action is warranted. Evaluation of the effectiveness of particular feedback approaches is now required to determine if there is an optimal approach to create change where needed.

Facilitators for using data from a quality registry in local quality improvement work: a cross-sectional survey of the Danish Cardiac Rehabilitation Database

OBJECTIVES

To investigate use of data from a clinical quality registry for cardiac rehabilitation in Denmark, considering the extent to which data are used for local quality improvement and what facilitates the use of these data, with a particular focus on whether there are differences between frontline staff and managers.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional nationwide survey study.

SETTING, METHODS AND PARTICIPANTS

A previously validated, Swedish questionnaire regarding use of data from clinical quality registries was translated and emailed to frontline staff, mid-level managers and heads of departments (n=175) in all 30 hospital departments participating in the Danish Cardiac Rehabilitation Database. Data were analysed descriptively and through multiple linear regression.

RESULTS

Survey response rate was 58% (101/175). Reports of registry use at department level (measured through an index comprising seven items; score min 0, max 7, where a low score indicates less use of data) varied significantly between groups of respondents: frontline staff mean score 1.3 (SD=2.0), mid-level management mean 2.4 (SD=2.3) and heads of departments mean 3.0 (SD=2.5), p=0.006. Overall, department level use of data was positively associated with higher perceived data quality and usefulness (regression coefficient=0.22, p=0.019), management request for data (regression coefficient=0.40, p=0.008) and personal motivation of the respondent (regression coefficient=1.63, p<0.001). Among managers, use of registry data was associated with data quality and usefulness (regression coefficient=0.43, p=0.027), and among frontline staff, reported data use was associated with management involvement in quality improvement work (regression coefficient=0.90, p=0.017) and personal motivation (regression coefficient=1.66, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest relatively sparse use of data in local quality improvement work. A complex interplay of factors seem to be associated with data use with varying aspects being of importance for frontline staff and managers.

Quality improvement initiatives in rheumatology: an integrative review of the last 5 years

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We reviewed recent quality improvement initiatives in the field of rheumatology to identify common strategies and themes leading to measurable change.

RECENT FINDINGS

Efforts to improve quality of care in rheumatology have accelerated in the last 5 years. Most studies in this area have focused on interventions to improve process measures such as increasing the collection of patient-reported outcomes and vaccination rates, but some studies have examined interventions to improve health outcomes. Increasingly, researchers are studying electronic health record (EHR)-based interventions, such as standardized templates, flowsheets, best practice alerts and order sets. EHR-based interventions were most successful when reinforced with provider education, reminders and performance feedback. Most studies also redesigned workflows, distributing tasks among clinical staff. Given the common challenges and solutions facing rheumatology clinics under new value-based payment models, there are important opportunities to accelerate quality improvement by building on the successful efforts to date. Structured quality improvement models such as the learning collaborative may help to disseminate successful initiatives across practices.

SUMMARY

Review of recent quality improvement initiatives in rheumatology demonstrated common solutions, particularly involving leveraging health IT and workflow redesign.

One size fits none - a qualitative study investigating nine national quality registries' conditions for use in quality improvement, research and interaction with patients

BACKGROUND

Swedish National Quality Registries (NQRs) are observational clinical registries that have long been seen as an underused resource for research and quality improvement (QI) in health care. In recent years, NQRs have also been recognised as an area where patients can be involved, contributing with self-reported experiences and estimations of health effects. This study aimed to investigate what the registry management perceived as barriers and facilitators for the use of NQRs in QI, research, and interaction with patients, and main activities undertaken to enhance their use for these purposes. The aim was further to identify potential differences between various types of NQRs for their use in these areas.

METHODS

In this multiple case study, nine NQRs were purposively selected. Interviews (n = 18) were conducted and analysed iteratively using conventional and directed content analysis.

RESULTS

A recent national investment initiative enabled more intensive work with development areas previously identified by the NQR management teams. The recent focus on value-based health care and other contemporary national healthcare investments aiming at QI and public benchmarking were perceived as facilitating factors. Having to perform double registrations due to shortcomings in digital systems was perceived as a barrier, as was the lack of authority on behalf of the registry management to request participation in NQRs and QI activities based on registry outcomes. The registry management teams used three strategies to enhance the use of NQRs: ensuring registering of correct and complete data, ensuring updated and understandable information available for patients, clinicians, researchers and others stakeholders, and intensifying cooperation with them. Varied characteristics of the NQRs influenced their use, and the possibility to reach various end-users was connected to the focus area and context of the NQRs.

CONCLUSIONS

The recent national investment initiative contributed to already ongoing work to strengthen the use of NQRs. To further increase the use, the demands of stakeholders and end-users must be in focus, but also an understanding of the NQRs' various characteristics and challenges. The end-users may have in common a need for training in the methodology of registry based research and benchmarking, and how to be more patient-centred.