Utilising a Data Capture Tool to Populate a Cardiac Rehabilitation Registry: A Feasibility Study

Emma Thomas, Sherry L. Grace, Douglas Boyle, Robyn Gallagher, Lis Neubeck, Nicholas Cox, Jo Anne Manski-Nankervis, Sandra Henley-Smith, Dominique A. Cadilhac, Adrienne O'Neil

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)


Background: Clinical registries are effective for monitoring clinical practice, yet manual data collection can limit their implementation and sustainability. The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of using a data capture tool to collect cardiac rehabilitation (CR) minimum variables from electronic hospital administration databases to populate a new CR registry in Australia. Methods: Two CR facilities located in Melbourne, Australia participated, providing data on 42 variables including: patient socio-demographics, risk factors and co-morbidities, CR program information (e.g. number of CR sessions), process indicators (e.g. wait time) and patient outcomes (e.g. change in exercise capacity). A pre-programmed, automated data capture tool (GeneRic Health Network Information for the Enterprise [20]: https://www.grhanite.com/) (GRHANITE™) was installed at the sites to extract data available in an electronic format from hospital sites. Additionally, clinicians entered data on CR patients into a purpose-built web-based tool (Research Electronic Data Capture: https://www.project-redcap.org/) (REDCap). Formative evaluation including staff feedback was collected. Results: The GRHANITE™ tool was successfully installed at the two CR sites and data from 176 patients (median age = 67 years, 76% male) were securely extracted between September–December 2017. Data pulled electronically from hospital databases was limited to seven of the 42 requested variables. This is due to CR sites only capturing basic patient information (e.g. socio-demographics, CR appointment bookings) in hospital administrative databases. The remaining clinical information required for the CR registry was collected in formats (e.g. paper-based, scanned or Excel spreadsheet) deemed unusable for electronic data capture. Manually entered data into the web-tool enabled data collection on all remaining variables. Compared to historical methods of data collection, CR staff reported that the REDCap tool reduced data entry time. Conclusions: The key benefits of a scalable, automated data capture tool like GRHANITE™ cannot be fully realised in settings with under-developed electronic health infrastructure. While this approach remains promising for creating and maintaining a registry that monitors the quality of CR provided to patients, further investment is required in the digital platforms underpinning this approach.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)224–232
Number of pages9
JournalHeart Lung and Circulation
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2020


  • Cardiac rehabilitation
  • Data scraping
  • Registry

Cite this