Towards a strategy for clinical quality registries in Australia
Susannah Ahern A B , Sue Evans A , Ingrid Hopper A and John Zalcberg AA School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, Vic. 3004, Australia. Email: susan.evans@monash.edu; ingrid.hopper@monash.edu; john.zalcberg@monash.edu
B Corresponding author. Email: susannah.ahern@monash.edu
Australian Health Review 43(3) 284-287 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH17201
Submitted: 20 August 2017 Accepted: 13 December 2017 Published: 8 February 2018
Abstract
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.
Additional keywords: cost-effectiveness, ethics, funding, governance, health data, quality improvement, safety and quality.
References
[1] van der Veer SN, de Keizer NF, Ravelli ACJ, Tenkink S, Jager KJ. Improving quality of care. A systematic review on how medical registries provide information feedback to health care providers. Int J Med Inform 2010; 79 305–23.| Improving quality of care. A systematic review on how medical registries provide information feedback to health care providers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[2] 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 |
[3] The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC). Operating principles and technical standards for Australian clinical quality registries. Sydney: ACSQHC; 2008.
[4] The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC). Framework for Australian clinical quality registries. Sydney: ACSQHC; 2014.
[5] Wilkins S, Best RL, Evans SM. Need for a roadmap for development of a co-ordinated national registry programme. Intern Med J 2015; 45 1189–92.
| Need for a roadmap for development of a co-ordinated national registry programme.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC283gsVyhtQ%3D%3D&md5=8a3c3fd2a959d1af7b009aa85f62aa37CAS |
[6] Monash University. Monash clinical registries. 2016. Available at: https://www.monash.edu/medicine/sphpm/registries [verified 9 January 2018].
[7] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). Australia’s hospitals 2014–15 at a glance. Health services series no. 70. Catalogue no. HSE 175. Canberra: AIHW; 2016.
[8] Brown WA, Smith BR, Boglis M, Brown DL, Anderson M, O’Brien PE, McNeil JJ, Caterson ID. Streamlining ethics review for multisite quality and safety initiatives: national bariatric surgery registry experience. Med J Aust 2016; 205 200–1.
| Streamlining ethics review for multisite quality and safety initiatives: national bariatric surgery registry experience.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[9] Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC). Economic evaluation of clinical quality registries: final report. Sydney: ACSQHC; 2016.
[10] Larsson S, Lawyer P, Silverstein MB. From concept to reality: putting value-based healthcare into practice in Sweden. Boston: Boston Consulting Group; 2010.
[11] Emilsson L, Lindahl B, Koster M, Lambe M, Ludvigsson JF. Review of 103 Swedish healthcare quality registries. J Intern Med 2015; 277 94–136.
| Review of 103 Swedish healthcare quality registries.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC2M%2Fmslanuw%3D%3D&md5=a468206962a0b448517cd4834e2369e7CAS |
[12] Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSAHC). Prioritised list of clinical domains for clinical quality registry development: final report. Sydney: ACSQHC; 2016.
[13] Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) Registry. 38th Annual report. Adelaide: ANZDATA Registry; 2014. Available at: http://www.anzdata.org.au/v1/report_2015.html [verified 10 November 2017].
[14] Hopper I, Ahern S, Best R, McNeil J, Cooter R. The Australian Breast Device Registry: breast device safety transformed. ANZ J Surg 2017; 87 9–10.
| The Australian Breast Device Registry: breast device safety transformed.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[15] School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine Monash University, Obesity Society of Australia and New Zealand. Fifth annual report of the Bariatric Surgery Registry. 2017. Available at: https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/1044594/Bariatric-Surgery-Registry-Annual-Report-2017.pdf [verified 10 November 2017].
[16] International Consortium for Health Outcomes (ICHOM). Building national outcomes registries in the Netherlands: DICA. London: ICHOM; 2016.
[17] Levay C. Policies to foster quality improvement registries: lessons from the Swedish case. J Intern Med 2016; 279 160–72.
| Policies to foster quality improvement registries: lessons from the Swedish case.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC283os12mtw%3D%3D&md5=a361469ac757e0c68f3985320ae76bf5CAS |
[18] Office of National Quality Registries. Certification criteria for national quality registries and registry candidates. Stockholm: Nationella Kvalitetsregister, Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting (SKL); 2012.
[19] Ahern S, Hopper I, Evans SM. Clinical quality registries for clinician-level reporting: strengths and limitations. Med J Aust 2017; 206 427–9.
| Clinical quality registries for clinician-level reporting: strengths and limitations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
