Clinical quality registries: urgent reform is required to enable best practice and best care

Clinical quality registries (CQRs) systematically collect data on pre-agreed markers of quality of care for a given procedure, that can be reliably and reproducibly defined and collected across multiple sites. Data is then risk adjusted, and comparisons may be used to benchmark performance. These data then inform quality improvement initiatives. CQRs require an overarching independent governance structure and surety of funding. CQRs rely upon whole of population enrolment to minimize the risk of selection bias, and often rely on the secondary use of sensitive health information, meaning that the processes for ethical review and consent to participation are different to clinical trials. Despite several local examples of CQR improving practice in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, providing substantial cost-benefit to the community, there remain significant barriers to CQR implementation and functions. These include the difficulty of accurate data capture, lack of a fit for purpose ethical review system, the constraints of existing Qualified Privilege legislations and the need for protected funding. Whilst the Australian Government has released a 10-year strategy for CQR reform, and the Aotearoa New Zealand Government has included registries in the planned Health New Zealand reforms for the public sector, we believe more urgent implementation of strategies to overcome these barriers is needed if CQRs are to have the impact on quality of care our Communities deserve.

Two-year outcomes from the Australian and New Zealand Emergency Laparotomy Audit-Quality Improvement pilot study

BACKGROUND

The aim of the Australian and New Zealand Emergency Laparotomy Audit-Quality Improvement (ANZELA-QI) pilot study was to determine (i) the outcomes of emergency laparotomy (EL) and (ii) the feasibility of a national, multi-disciplinary quality improvement (QI) project based on a bundle of evidence-based care standards.

METHODS

An online database was created using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) programme. National ethics approval with waiver of consent was obtained. Data were entered directly onto REDCap and extracted monthly for eight care standards (preoperative consultant radiologist reporting of computed tomography scans, preoperative mortality risk score, consultant presence in theatre, timely access to theatre and critical care commensurate with risk and involvement of aged care). Monthly QI run charts using 'traffic' light graphics (green ≥80%, amber ≥50% to <80% and red <50%) reported compliance with the standards.

RESULTS

Sixty hospitals indicated interest, but difficulties with site-specific ethics approval resulted in only 24 hospitals participating (2886 EL in 2755 patients). The overall in-hospital mortality was 7.1% (2.3%-13.3%) and average length of stay 15.5 (8.6-22.7) days. Both significantly declined. Preoperative risk assessment (overall 45%) improved almost three-fold during the study. Only 60% had timely access to theatre and only 70% with a predicted mortality risk of >10% were admitted to critical care.

CONCLUSION

Overall mortality compared favourably with similar international studies and declined in association with participation in the audit. Compliance with some care standards shows considerable scope to improve EL care using QI methodology.

Towards a strategy for clinical quality registries in Australia

The healthcare value of Australian clinical quality registries (CQRs) has recently been highlighted by the Australian Commission of Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC) as being similar to the benefits of CQRs reported internationally. However, the development of CQRs in Australia is currently limited by a lack of coordination and strategic planning, leading to governance and funding processes that are varied and non-sustainable. Despite this, Australia has achieved recognised success with exemplar clinical registries where funding has been sustained at least partly by public funds. To this end, Australia can learn from international CQR governance and funding models to support CQR sustainability, most notably those from European and Scandinavian countries. Further, following the release of the ACSQHC's prioritised domains for CQRs and anticipated funding from the Medical Research Future Fund, the ACSQHC is well positioned to lead a national strategic approach for clinical registries. Together with medical leadership and engagement, operational and data management support from the jurisdictions and financial support from both the public and private sectors, a prioritised and coordinated approach may soon become a reality.

The Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Registry (UGICR): a clinical quality registry to monitor and improve care in upper gastrointestinal cancers

PURPOSE

The Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Registry (UGICR) was developed to monitor and improve the quality of care provided to patients with upper gastrointestinal cancers in Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

It supports four cancer modules: pancreatic, oesophagogastric, biliary and primary liver cancer. The pancreatic cancer (PC) module was the first module to be implemented, with others being established in a staged approach. Individuals are recruited to the registry if they are aged 18 years or older, have received care for their cancer at a participating public/private hospital or private clinic in Australia and do not opt out of participation.

FINDINGS TO DATE

The UGICR is governed by a multidisciplinary steering committee that provides clinical governance and oversees clinical working parties. The role of the working parties is to develop quality indicators based on best practice for each registry module, develop the minimum datasets and provide guidance in analysing and reporting of results. Data are captured from existing data sources (population-based cancer incidence registries, pathology databases and hospital-coded data) and manually from clinical records. Data collectors directly enter information into a secure web-based Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) data collection platform. The PC module began with a pilot phase, and subsequently, we used a formal modified Delphi consensus process to establish a core set of quality indicators for PC. The second module developed was the oesophagogastric cancer (OGC) module. Results of the 1 year pilot phases for PC and OGC modules are included in this cohort profile.

FUTURE PLANS

The UGICR will provide regular reports of risk-adjusted, benchmarked performance on a range of quality indicators that will highlight variations in care and clinical outcomes at a health service level. The registry has also been developed with the view to collect patient-reported outcomes (PROs), which will further add to our understanding of the care of patients with these cancers.

Development of Technologic Solutions to Address Complex Local Requirements of an International Prostate Cancer Clinical Quality Registry

PURPOSE

To detail the process for importing a defined data set into a centralized global registry via a secure file transfer platform and to understand the barriers to the establishment of a centralized global registry.

RESULTS

A bespoke solution was developed to allow transmission of data from international local data centers to a centralized repository. Data elements included in the import template were drawn from existing International Consortium for Health Outcome Measurement variables and refined to ensure accurate benchmarking as well as feasibility in data completeness. The data set was organized in accordance with the prostate cancer care trajectory. Key considerations in developing the data transfer platform included import file format, process of input validation, and technical provisions. Given the diversity in the legislation and ethical requirements with respect to consent, data handling, and cross-border data transfer across geographic locations, we encouraged each local data center to consult with its legal advisors and research ethics committee early on in the process.

DISCUSSION

A global collaboration, although highly valuable, posed many challenges because of inconsistent methods of data collection. User acceptance of a system is paramount to the success of establishing a metaregistry. Local information technology support and regular regression testing ensures quality and maintenance of the database.

CONCLUSION

We developed a Web-based system to facilitate the collection and secure storage of common data, which is scalable and secure. It is anticipated that through systematic recording of data, global standards of clinical practice and outcomes of care will see vast improvements.

Development of a binational thyroid cancer clinical quality registry: a protocol paper

INTRODUCTION

The occurrence of thyroid cancer is increasing throughout the developed world and since the 1990s has become the fastest increasing malignancy. In 2014, a total of 2693 Australians and 302 New Zealanders were diagnosed with thyroid cancer, with this number projected to rise to 3650 in 2018. The purpose of this protocol is to establish a binational population-based clinical quality registry with the aim of monitoring and improving the quality of care provided to patients diagnosed with thyroid cancer in Australia and New Zealand.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Australian and New Zealand Thyroid Cancer Registry (ANZTCR) aims to capture clinical data for all patients over the age of 16 years with thyroid cancer, confirmed by histopathology report, who have been diagnosed, assessed or treated at a contributing hospital. A multidisciplinary steering committee was formed which, with operational support from Monash University, established the ANZTCR in early 2017. The pilot phase of the registry is currently operating in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia, with over 20 sites expected to come on board across Australia in 2018. A modified Delphi process was undertaken to determine the clinical quality indicators to be reported by the registry, and a minimum data set was developed comprising information regarding thyroid cancer diagnosis, pathology, surgery and 90-day follow-up.

FUTURE PLANS

The establishment of the ANZTCR provides the opportunity for Australia and New Zealand to further understand current practice in the treatment of thyroid cancer and identify variation in outcomes. The engagement of endocrine surgeons in supporting this initiative is crucial. While the pilot registry has a focus on early clinical outcomes, it is anticipated that future collection of longer term outcome data particularly for patients with poor prognostic disease will add significant further value to the registry.

Cross-sectional study of characteristics of clinical registries in Australia: a resource for clinicians and policy makers

Objectives

To investigate the attributes of Australian clinical quality registries (CQR).

Design and setting

Survey of 40 CQRs between September 2015 and April 2016.

Participants

CQR lead investigators/project managers.

Intervention

None.

Main outcome measures

Registry organization, geographical coverage, data quality, management, characteristics, output and outcomes.

Results

Of those who responded (34/40; 85.0%), 12 (34.3%) were binational (Australia and New Zealand); 22 (64.7%) were Australian-only registries; and 13 (38.2%) had national coverage. CQRs covered critical care, infection control, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, chronic diseases, procedures and devices, and transplants. Overall, 24/34 CQRs (70.6%) were public sector funded. In total, 14 (41.2%) scored >75% on a composite score developed to assess data quality. Overall, 29/34 (85.3%) produced an annual multi-centred report; only 15/34 (44.1%) produced provider-specific reports. Mortality/survival and quality of life were collected by 82.4 and 32.4% of CQRs, respectively. Most CQRs displayed data in bar/column charts (28/34, 82.4%) and funnel plots (17/34, 50%). Most CQRs adopted an opt-out consent process (n = 17/31; 54.8%). Linear regression indicated that longer duration of CQR was associated with higher data quality (>20 vs 0-5 years coefficient = 4.76, 95% CI: 0.26, 9.26). Opt-in consent was associated with lower data quality (no active consent vs opt-in approval method, coefficient = -5.22, 95% CI: -8.71, -1.72). Six CQRs self-reported having undertaken an economic evaluation of their registry.

Conclusion

CQRs varied in geographical coverage; stage of development, approach to recruitment; method and frequency of reporting their output; and data quality assurance. An accreditation system for CQRs would likely assist in recognizing high-quality registries.

Pilot for the Australian Breast Device Registry (ABDR): a national opt-out clinical quality registry for breast device surgery

PURPOSE

To establish a pilot clinical quality registry (CQR) to monitor the quality of care and device performance for breast device surgery in Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

All patients having breast device surgery from contributing hospitals in Australia. A literature review was performed which identified quality indicators for breast device surgery.

FINDINGS TO DATE

A pilot CQR was established in 2011 to capture prospective data on breast device surgery. An interim Steering Committee and Management Committee were established to provide clinical governance, and guide quality indicator selection. The registry's minimum dataset was formulated in consultation with stakeholder groups; potential quality indicators were assessed in terms of (1) importance and relevance, (2) usability, (3) feasibility to collect and (4) scientific validity. Data collection was by a two-sided paper-based form with manual data entry. Seven sites were recruited, including one public hospital, four private hospitals and two day surgeries. Patients were recruited and opt-out consent used.

FUTURE PLANS

The pilot breast device registry provides high-quality population-based data. It provides a model for developing a national CQR for breast devices; its minimum dataset and quality indicators reflect the opinions of the broad range of stakeholders. It is easily scalable, and has formed the basis for other international surgical groups establishing similar registries.

The high costs of getting ethical and site-specific approvals for multi-centre research

Background

Multi-centre studies generally cost more than single-centre studies because of larger sample sizes and the need for multiple ethical approvals. Multi-centre studies include clinical trials, clinical quality registries, observational studies and implementation studies. We examined the costs of two large Australian multi-centre studies in obtaining ethical and site-specific approvals.

Methods

We collected data on staff time spent on approvals and expressed the overall cost as a percent of the total budget.

Results

The total costs of gaining approval were 38 % of the budget for a study of 50 centres (mean cost AUD $6960 per site) and 2 % for a study of 11 centres (mean cost AUD $2300 per site). Seventy-five and 90 % of time was spent on repeated tasks, respectively, and many time-consuming tasks, such as reformatting documents, did nothing to improve the study design or participant safety.

Conclusions

Improvements have been made to the ethical approval application system, but more gains could be made without increasing risks of harm to research participants. We propose that ethical review bodies and individual sites publish statistics on how long they take to process approvals which could then be nationally benchmarked.