Are Clinicians Using Routinely Collected Data to Drive Practice Improvement? A Cross Sectional Survey.
Gawthorne, J
Fasugba, O
Levi, C
McInnes, E
Ferguson, C
McNeil, J
Cadilhac, DA
Everett, B
Fernandez, R
Fry, M
Goldsmith, H
Hickman, L
Jackson, D
Maguire, J
Murray, E
Perry, L
Middleton, S
Goldsmith, H
Hickman, L
Jackson, D
Maguire, J
Murray, E
Perry, L
Middleton, S
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Publication Type:
- Journal Article
- Citation:
- International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care, 2021
- Issue Date:
- 2021-10-06
Open Access
Copyright Clearance Process
- Recently Added
- In Progress
- Open Access
This item is open access.
Background
Clinical registry participation is a measure of healthcare quality. Limited knowledge exists on Australian hospitals participation in clinical registries and whether this registry data informs quality improvement initiatives. Hence, our study aimed to; identify participation in clinical registries; determine if registry data inform quality improvement initiatives; identify registry participation enablers; and clinicians' educational needs to improve use of registry data to drive practice change.Methods
: A self-administered survey was distributed to staff coordinating registries in seven hospitals in New South Wales, Australia. Eligible registries were international, national and state-based clinical, condition/disease-specific and device/product registries.Results
: Response rate was 70% (97/139). Sixty-two (64%) respondents contributed data to 46 eligible registries. Registry reports were most often received by nurses (61%) and infrequently by hospital executives (8.4%). Less than half used registry data 'always' or 'often' to influence practice improvement (48%) and care pathways (49%). Protected time for data collection (87%) and benchmarking (79%) were 'very likely' or 'likely' to promote continued participation. Over half 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that clinical practice improvement training (79%) and evidence-practice gap identification (77%) would optimise use of registry data.Conclusions
: Registry data are generally only visible to local speciality units and not routinely used to inform quality improvement. Centralised on-going registry funding, accessible and transparent integrated information systems, combined with data informed improvement science education could be first steps to promote quality data-driven clinical improvement initiatives.Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: