Susannah Ahern, Mohammad Amin Honardoost, Aruna Kartik, Eliza Chung, Lachlan Dalli, Tesfahun C Eshetie, Cindy Turner, Michelle Merenda, Stephen McDonald
{"title":"Monitoring performance and improving outcomes: characteristics and outputs of Australian clinical registries.","authors":"Susannah Ahern, Mohammad Amin Honardoost, Aruna Kartik, Eliza Chung, Lachlan Dalli, Tesfahun C Eshetie, Cindy Turner, Michelle Merenda, Stephen McDonald","doi":"10.1177/18333583251345039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Clinical registries are long-term observational data collections relating to specific medical conditions, procedures, devices or health services. <b>Objective:</b> To assess current characteristics and outputs of clinical registries in Australia. <b>Method:</b> A cross-sectional survey design of Australian clinical registries listed on the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC) register as of 21 September 2023. <b>Results:</b> Of 107 clinical registries on the ACSQHC register that were contacted, 64 (60%) participated in the survey. Of these, 37 (58%) had been active for ⩾10 years, 38 (59%) were medical clinical registries and 35 (57%) received government funding. Clinical registry activities included research (92%), quality improvement (81%) and epidemiological monitoring (68%). Data were commonly patient-identifiable (64%) and collected by clinicians/staff (81%). A majority (55%) had real-time data available to contributing hospitals. Clinical registry outputs included providing data to researchers (97%), publications (83%), annual reports (69%) and site benchmarked reports (64%). Over half informed quality improvement activities (60%), monitored adherence to guidelines (59%) or informed policy or service planning (52%). Nearly half-supported clinical trials (49%), while one-fifth had integrated with government data frameworks. <b>Conclusion:</b> Australian clinical registries monitor health system performance across a breadth of clinical areas. A majority undertake regular public and hospital reporting and inform other quality improvement activities. <b>Implications for health information management practice:</b> Clinical registries interact with hospitals regarding their data collection and reporting activities. Health information management specialists have an important role in maximising registry data quality and therefore value to a wide variety of stakeholders.</p>","PeriodicalId":73210,"journal":{"name":"Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia","volume":" ","pages":"18333583251345039"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/18333583251345039","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Clinical registries are long-term observational data collections relating to specific medical conditions, procedures, devices or health services. Objective: To assess current characteristics and outputs of clinical registries in Australia. Method: A cross-sectional survey design of Australian clinical registries listed on the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC) register as of 21 September 2023. Results: Of 107 clinical registries on the ACSQHC register that were contacted, 64 (60%) participated in the survey. Of these, 37 (58%) had been active for ⩾10 years, 38 (59%) were medical clinical registries and 35 (57%) received government funding. Clinical registry activities included research (92%), quality improvement (81%) and epidemiological monitoring (68%). Data were commonly patient-identifiable (64%) and collected by clinicians/staff (81%). A majority (55%) had real-time data available to contributing hospitals. Clinical registry outputs included providing data to researchers (97%), publications (83%), annual reports (69%) and site benchmarked reports (64%). Over half informed quality improvement activities (60%), monitored adherence to guidelines (59%) or informed policy or service planning (52%). Nearly half-supported clinical trials (49%), while one-fifth had integrated with government data frameworks. Conclusion: Australian clinical registries monitor health system performance across a breadth of clinical areas. A majority undertake regular public and hospital reporting and inform other quality improvement activities. Implications for health information management practice: Clinical registries interact with hospitals regarding their data collection and reporting activities. Health information management specialists have an important role in maximising registry data quality and therefore value to a wide variety of stakeholders.