Maximising the value of clinical registry information through integration with a health service clinical governance framework: a case study
Susannah Ahern A C , Robert Feiler B and Susan Sdrinis BA Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Level 2, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, Vic. 3004, Australia.
B Alfred Health, 55 Commercial Road, Melbourne, Vic. 3004, Australia. Email: Robert.Feiler@alfred.org.au; S.Sdrinis@alfred.org.au
C Corresponding author. Email: Susannah.ahern@monash.edu
Australian Health Review 44(3) 421-426 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH19004
Submitted: 9 January 2019 Accepted: 29 August 2019 Published: 11 February 2020
Journal Compilation © AHHA 2020 Open Access CC BY-NC-ND
Abstract
This initiative sought to identify unit participation in clinical registries within a large metropolitan health service and to develop approaches to integration of registry reporting within the organisational clinical governance framework to maximise potential quality improvement benefits. The initiative, led by the Medical Services Department at Alfred Health, initially involved identifying health service participation in clinical registries via a range of mechanisms, including one-on-one meetings with clinical registry investigators. In conjunction with the Clinical Governance Unit, tools to summarise and track clinical registry information at Alfred Health over time were developed and piloted. Alfred Health identified 69 clinical registries in which its units participated. These were heterogeneous in terms of clinical area and purpose, as well as the nature and frequency of reporting. Engagement with clinicians led to the establishment of a registry interest group, a calendar of clinical quality registry reports, and a guideline and reporting template and dashboard. Clinician engagement and medical leadership were critical to the development of this initiative. The reporting tool and dashboard have had initial success, with long-term success ultimately being measured by the routine incorporation of registry outcomes into clinical governance reporting over time.
What is known about the topic? Health service clinical governance systems require the collection, analysis and ongoing monitoring of clinical performance and quality improvement information. These data may be from internally derived clinical indicators or from external datasets, such as clinical registries. However, although clinical registries have traditionally provided information at the unit level, mechanisms to systematically incorporate these clinical measures into health service clinical governance systems have been lacking.
What does this paper add? This paper provides a case study of the steps taken by one large health service to identify, engage clinicians and incorporate disease-specific clinical registry indicators into its organisational clinical governance framework. It highlights the complexity of the task through the time taken to identify, translate and summarise key clinical information into a format suitable for organisational committee reporting.
What are the implications for practitioners? This paper highlights to health service managers the importance of initial and ongoing engagement of clinicians in the development of a shared approach to organisational use of clinical registry data. It outlines potential steps that can be taken within a health service to engage clinicians in sharing registry information, and processes that can assist in systematically incorporating registry information into actionable organisational-level reporting as part of clinical governance.
References
[1] Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC). National model clinical governance framework. Sydney: ACSQHC; 2017.[2] Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC). National safety and quality health service standards. 2nd edn. Sydney: ACSQHC; 2017.
[3] Wilcox N, McNeil JJ. Clinical quality registries have the potential to drive improvements in the appropriateness of care. Med J Aust 2016; 205 S21–6.
| Clinical quality registries have the potential to drive improvements in the appropriateness of care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[4] Hoque DME, Kumari V, Hoque M, Ruseckaite R, Romero L, Evans S. Impact of clinical registries on quality of patient care and clinical outcomes: a systematic review. PLoS One 2017; 12 e0183667
| Impact of clinical registries on quality of patient care and clinical outcomes: a systematic review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29228050PubMed |
[5] Evans SM, Scott IA, Johnson NP, Cameron PA, McNeil JJ. Development of clinical-quality registries in Australia: the way forward. Med J Aust 2011; 194 360–3.
| Development of clinical-quality registries in Australia: the way forward.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21470087PubMed |
[6] Ovretveit J, Nelwon E, James B. Building a learning health system using clinical registers: a non-technical introduction. J Health Organ Manag 2016; 30 1105–18.
| Building a learning health system using clinical registers: a non-technical introduction.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27700477PubMed |
[7] Lefkovits J, Brennan A, Dinh D, Driscoll A, Stub D, Carruthers H, Doyle J, Tytler K, Reid C, on behalf of the VCOR. Annual public report 2017. Victorian Cardiac Outcomes Registry. 2018. Available at: http://www.vcor.org.au/sites/default/files/VCOR%20Annual%20Report%202017.pdf [verified 10 May 2019].
[8] Bariatric Surgery Registry. Bariatric surgery registry 2017/18 report. 2018. Available at: https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/1481943/Bariatric-Surgery-Registry-2018_FINAL.pdf [verified 10 May 2019].
[9] Asrar Ul Haq M, Tsay IM, Dinh DT, Brennan A, Clark D, Cox N, Harper R, Nadurata V, Andrianopoulos N, Reid C, Duffy SJ, Lefkovits J, van Gaal WJ. Prevalence and outcomes of trans-radial access for percutaneous coronary intervention in contemporary practise. Int J Cardiol 2016; 221 264–8.
| Prevalence and outcomes of trans-radial access for percutaneous coronary intervention in contemporary practise.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27404687PubMed |
[10] Bridgewater B, Hickey G L, Cooper G, Deanfield J. Publishing cardiac surgery mortality rates: lessons for other specialties. BMJ 2013; 346 f1139
| Publishing cardiac surgery mortality rates: lessons for other specialties.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23449673PubMed |
[11] Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care Care (ACSQHC). Operating principles and technical standards for clinical quality registries. Sydney: ACSQHC; 2008.
[12] Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care Care (ACSQHC). Framework for Australian clinical quality registries. Sydney: ACSQHC; 2014.
[13] Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care Care (ACSQHC). Prioritised list of clinical domains for clinical quality registry development: final report. Sydney: ACSQHC; 2016.
[14] Victorian Government. Targeting zero – supporting the Victorian hospital system to eliminate avoidable harm and strengthen quality of care. Report of the Review of Hospital Safety and Quality Assurance in Victoria. Melbourne: Victorian Government; 2016.
[15] Eldh AC, Wallin L, Fredriksson M, Vengberg S, Winblad U, Halford C, Dahlstrom T. Factors facilitating a national quality registry to aid clinical quality improvement: findings of a national survey. BMJ Open 2016; 6 e011562
| Factors facilitating a national quality registry to aid clinical quality improvement: findings of a national survey.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28128099PubMed |
[16] Eldh AC, Fredriksson M, Vengberg S, Halford C, Wallin L, Dahlstrom T, Winblad U. Depicting the interplay between organisational tiers in the use of a national quality registry to develop quality of care in Sweden. BMC Health Serv Res 2015; 15 519
| Depicting the interplay between organisational tiers in the use of a national quality registry to develop quality of care in Sweden.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 26607344PubMed |
[17] Hoque DME, Ruseckaite R, Lorgelly P, McNeil JJ, Evans SM. Cross-sectional study of characteristics of clinical registries in Australia: a resource for clinicians and policy makers. Int J Qual Health Care 2018; 30 192–9.
| Cross-sectional study of characteristics of clinical registries in Australia: a resource for clinicians and policy makers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[18] Dwyer A, McNeil J. Are clinical registries actually used? The level of medical staff participation in clinical registries and reporting within a major tertiary teaching hospital. Asia Pacific Journal of Health Management 2016; 11 56–64.
[19] Alfred Health. Annual report 2017–18. Melbourne: Alfred Health; 2018. Available at: https://www.alfredhealth.org.au/contents/resources/corporate-publications/Annual-Report/Alfred-Health-Annual-Report-2017-2018.pdf [verified 15 May 2019].
