National quality registries: how to improve the quality of data?

Abstract

Background: Data of quality registries are increasingly used by healthcare providers, patients, health insurance companies, and governments for monitoring quality of care, hospital benchmarking and outcome research. To provide all stakeholders with reliable information and outcomes, reliable data are of the utmost importance. Methods: This article describes methods for quality assurance of data-used by the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing (DICA)-regarding: the design of a registry, data collection, data analysis, and external data verification. For the Dutch Lung Cancer Audit for Surgery (DLCA-S) results of data analysis and data verification were assessed with descriptive statistics. Results: Of all registered patients in the DLCA-S in 2016 (n=2,391), 98.2% was analysable and completeness of data for calculations of transparent outcomes was 90.7%. Data verification for the year 2014 showed a case ascertainment of 99.4%. Of 15 selected hospitals, 14 were verified. All these hospitals received the conclusion 'sufficient quality' on case ascertainment, mortality (0% under-registration) and complicated course (3.3% wrongly registered complications). One hospital was not able to deliver patients lists, and therefore not verified. Conclusions: Quality of data can be promoted in many different ways. A completeness indicator and data verification are useful tools to improve data quality. Both methods were used to demonstrate the reliability of registered data in the DLCA-S. Opportunities for further improvement are standardised reporting and adequate data extraction.

Volume–outcome relationship of liver surgery: a nationwide analysis

“…These variables could include advanced data on (hepatic) co‐morbidity, or variables in the patient evaluation such as the assessment of remnant liver volume and function. As in other national audits, there are some missing data for non‐mandatory parameters. Furthermore, to ensure complete anonymity in the analysis from a small country such as the Netherlands, no distinction was made between hospitals' teaching status, which is a factor known to have a potential influence on outcomes.…”

Prescription Rates for Antiplatelet Therapy (APT) in Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) – What Benchmark are We Aiming at in Continuing Medical Education (CME)?

“…We though believe that our data give a realistic estimate of the order of magnitude of the issue. d. Furthermore, these results may have been influenced by documentation disparities, which have been demonstrated to occur in a significant number of patients in similar studies [9,[42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]. e. We have no data to estimate to which extent complications emerging in the course of treatment might have influenced the results of this study, though e.g.…”

A nationwide population-based cohort study of surgical care for patients with superior sulcus tumors: Results from the Dutch Lung Cancer Audit for Surgery (DLCA-S)

“…In addition, a few of the items, such as histopathology, have had to be fine-tuned via continuous feed-back from users of the database, which makes it harder to interpret them. Nevertheless, despite these concerns the registry has been validated by external, independent parties and shown to be reliable [35]. The amount of data that clinicians have to input, the proportion of missing data, and the lack of survival data in DLCA-S all deserve attention.…”