The Use of Clinical Registries in the United States: A Landscape Survey.

Seth Blumenthal
{"title":"The Use of Clinical Registries in the United States: A Landscape Survey.","authors":"Seth Blumenthal","doi":"10.5334/egems.248","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The use of information from clinical registries for improvement and value-based payment is increasing, yet information about registry use is not widely available. We conducted a landscape survey to understand registry uses, focus areas and challenges. The survey addressed the structure and organization of registry programs, as well as their purpose and scope.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>The survey was conducted by the National Quality Registry Network (NQRN), a community of organizations interested in registries. NQRN is a program of the PCPI, a national convener of medical specialty and professional societies and associations, which constitute a majority of registry stewards in the United States.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We surveyed 152 societies and associations, asking about registry programs, governance, number of registries, purpose and data uses, data collection, expenses, funding and interoperability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The response rate was 52 percent. Many registries were self-funded, with 39 percent spending less than $1 million per year, and 32 percent spending $1-9.9 million. The typical registry had three full-time equivalent staff. Registries were frequently used for quality improvement, benchmarking and clinical decision support. 85 percent captured outpatient data. Most registries collected demographics, treatments, practitioner information and comorbidities; 53 percent captured patient-reported outcomes. 88 percent used manual data entry and 18 percent linked to external secondary data sources. Cost, interoperability and vendor management were barriers to continued registry development.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Registries captured data across a broad scope, audited data quality using multiple techniques, and used a mix of automated and manual data capture methods. Registry interoperability was still a challenge, even among registries using nationally accepted data standards.</p>","PeriodicalId":72880,"journal":{"name":"EGEMS (Washington, DC)","volume":"5 1","pages":"26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/10/ca/egems-5-1-248.PMC5994955.pdf","citationCount":"21","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EGEMS (Washington, DC)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/egems.248","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

Abstract

Introduction: The use of information from clinical registries for improvement and value-based payment is increasing, yet information about registry use is not widely available. We conducted a landscape survey to understand registry uses, focus areas and challenges. The survey addressed the structure and organization of registry programs, as well as their purpose and scope.

Setting: The survey was conducted by the National Quality Registry Network (NQRN), a community of organizations interested in registries. NQRN is a program of the PCPI, a national convener of medical specialty and professional societies and associations, which constitute a majority of registry stewards in the United States.

Methods: We surveyed 152 societies and associations, asking about registry programs, governance, number of registries, purpose and data uses, data collection, expenses, funding and interoperability.

Results: The response rate was 52 percent. Many registries were self-funded, with 39 percent spending less than $1 million per year, and 32 percent spending $1-9.9 million. The typical registry had three full-time equivalent staff. Registries were frequently used for quality improvement, benchmarking and clinical decision support. 85 percent captured outpatient data. Most registries collected demographics, treatments, practitioner information and comorbidities; 53 percent captured patient-reported outcomes. 88 percent used manual data entry and 18 percent linked to external secondary data sources. Cost, interoperability and vendor management were barriers to continued registry development.

Conclusions: Registries captured data across a broad scope, audited data quality using multiple techniques, and used a mix of automated and manual data capture methods. Registry interoperability was still a challenge, even among registries using nationally accepted data standards.

临床登记在美国的使用:一项景观调查。
导论:临床注册信息用于改善和基于价值的支付的使用正在增加,但有关注册使用的信息并不广泛可用。我们进行了一项景观调查,以了解登记处的用途、重点领域和挑战。该调查讨论了注册表程序的结构和组织,以及它们的目的和范围。背景:这项调查是由国家质量注册网络(NQRN)进行的,这是一个对注册感兴趣的组织社区。NQRN是PCPI的一个项目,PCPI是医学专业和专业学会和协会的全国召集人,这些协会和协会构成了美国注册管理人员的大多数。方法:我们调查了152个学会和协会,询问注册项目、治理、注册数量、目的和数据使用、数据收集、费用、资金和互操作性。结果:有效率为52%。许多注册中心都是自筹资金的,39%的注册中心每年的支出少于100万美元,32%的注册中心每年的支出为100万至990万美元。典型的登记处有三个全职工作人员。登记经常用于质量改进、基准制定和临床决策支持。85%的门诊数据。大多数登记收集人口统计、治疗、从业人员信息和合并症;53%捕获了患者报告的结果。88%的人使用手动数据输入,18%的人链接到外部辅助数据源。成本、互操作性和供应商管理是继续注册中心开发的障碍。结论:注册中心在广泛的范围内捕获数据,使用多种技术审计数据质量,并混合使用自动和手动数据捕获方法。注册中心互操作性仍然是一个挑战,即使在使用国家认可的数据标准的注册中心之间也是如此。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信