Clinical quality registries for clinical-level reporting: Strengths and limitations

Research output: Contribution to journalComment / DebateOtherpeer-review

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Australia should learn from overseas experience of reporting clinician outcomes before considering a similar program

Clinical registries systematically collect clinically relevant data regarding specific diseases or health events using standard procedures and definitions across multiple institutions. They originated as an epidemiological construct, and were designed to measure health outcomes across whole populations, originally for epidemiological and health planning purposes. More recently, the term “clinical quality registry” (CQR) has been introduced to define registries that use specific clinical quality indicators for regular confidential and benchmarked reporting to participating sites.1 CQR reporting at a hospital level acknowledges the often inextricable links between the many factors affecting patient care, including practitioner performance, support staff, facilities, care processes, and pre- and postoperative care. CQR reporting may provide early warning of potential quality issues, and when hospitals with outlying results internally review their data and processes, it may be an effective stimulus for clinical practice change.
Original languageEnglish
Article numbermja16.00659
Pages (from-to)427-429.e1
Number of pages4
JournalThe Medical Journal of Australia
Volume206
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 5 Jun 2017

Cite this