Response rates in clinical quality registries and databases that collect patient reported outcome measures: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are being increasingly introduced in clinical registries, providing a personal perspective on the expectations and impact of treatment. The aim of this study was to describe response rates (RR) to PROMs in clinical registries and databases and to examine the trends over time, and how they change with the registry type, region and disease or condition captured.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping literature review of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, in addition to Google Scholar and grey literature. All English studies on clinical registries capturing PROMs at one or more time points were included. Follow up time points were defined as follows: baseline (if available), < 1 year, 1 to < 2 years, 2 to < 5 years, 5 to < 10 years and 10 + years. Registries were grouped according to regions of the world and health conditions. Subgroup analyses were conducted to identify trends in RRs over time. These included calculating average RRs, standard deviation and change in RRs according to total follow up time.

RESULTS

The search strategy yielded 1,767 publications. Combined with 20 reports and four websites, a total of 141 sources were used in the data extraction and analysis process. Following the data extraction, 121 registries capturing PROMs were identified. The overall average RR at baseline started at 71% and decreased to 56% at 10 + year at follow up. The highest average baseline RR of 99% was observed in Asian registries and in registries capturing data on chronic conditions (85%). Overall, the average RR declined as follow up time increased.

CONCLUSION

A large variation and downward trend in PROMs RRs was observed in most of the registries identified in our review. Formal recommendations are required for consistent collection, follow up and reporting of PROMs data in a registry setting to improve patient care and clinical practice. Further research studies are needed to determine acceptable RRs for PROMs captured in clinical registries.

Accuracy and quality of the British Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (BOFAS) Registry - Ankle Arthrodesis Pathway

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the completeness, accuracy, quality and clinical outcomes of the British Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (BOFAS) registry - Ankle Arthrodesis pathway.

METHODS

An observational study using retrospective data derived from the BOFAS registry. Adults aged ≥18 years with a record of undergoing ankle arthrodesis in the UK from 2014 to 31/10/2019 were included. Accuracy of data capture and completeness were explored using means, SD, medians and IQR for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables. The pre and post treatment pathway was evaluated by analysing Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) including MOXF-FQ scores for pain/walking/standing/social interaction; NRS pain; EQ-5D-5L; and EQ-5D-5L-Health VAS at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months.

RESULTS

Mean age of the study population (n = 186) was 62.3 (±12.9) years and 65% of the study cohort were male. Completeness of data collection was disappointing but variables such as BMI (62.4%) smoking status (82.3%) were reasonably well recorded. PROMs scores were well recorded at baseline but rapidly declined at 6 and 12-months intervals. Reductions in MOXFQ and NRS pain scores by 12 months following surgery were statistically significant (p = 0.001 and p = 0.008), illustrating that most patients demonstrated reductions in pain intensity, improved walking/standing ability, and social interaction.

CONCLUSION

These findings illustrate the potential effectiveness of surgery on all outcomes following ankle arthrodesis that merits evaluation in a clinical trial; but also demonstrated the difficulties in obtaining representative data sets. The analyses strongly suggest that with the improvements in data quality greater resources would bring, the BOFAS registry would become a valuable tool.

Preliminary development of recommendations for the inclusion of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical quality registries

BACKGROUND

Clinical quality registries (CQRs) monitor compliance against optimal practice and provide feedback to the clinical community and wider stakeholder groups. Despite a number of CQRs having incorporated the patient perspective to support the evaluation of healthcare delivery, no recommendations for inclusion of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in CQRs exist. The aim of this study was to develop a core set of recommendations for PROMs inclusion of in CQRs.

METHOD

An online two-round Delphi survey was performed among CQR data custodians, quality of life researchers, biostatisticians and clinicians largely recruited in Australia. A list of statements for the recommendations was identified from a literature and survey of the Australian registries conducted in 2019. The statements were grouped into the following domains: rationale, setting, ethics, instrument, administration, data management, statistical methods, and feedback and reporting. Eighteen experts were invited to participate, 11 agreed to undertake the first online survey (round 1). Of these, nine experts completed the online survey for round 2.

RESULTS

From 117 statements presented to the Delphi panel in round 1, a total of 72 recommendations (55 from round 1 and 17 from round 2) with median importance (MI) ≥ 7 and disagreement index (DI) < 1 were proposed for inclusion into the final draft set and were reviewed by the project team. Recommendations were refined for clarity and to read as stand-alone statements. Ten overlapped conceptually and, therefore, were merged to reduce repetition. The final 62 recommendations were sent for review to the panel members for their feedback, which was incorporated into the final set.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to develop preliminary recommendations for PROMs inclusion in CQRs. Recommendations for PROMs implementation are critically important for registries to assure meaningful PROMs data capture, use, interpretation, and reporting to improve health outcomes and healthcare value.