Are clinicians using routinely collected data to drive practice improvement? A cross-sectional survey

Julie Gawthorne; Oyebola Fasugba; Chris Levi; Elizabeth Mcinnes; Caleb Ferguson; John J Mcneil; Dominique A Cadilhac; Bronwyn Everett; Ritin Fernandez; Margaret Fry; Helen Goldsmith; Louise Hickman; Deborah Jackson; Jane Maguire; Edel Murray; Lin Perry; Sandy Middleton

doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzab141

Are clinicians using routinely collected data to drive practice improvement? A cross-sectional survey

Int J Qual Health Care. 2021 Oct 20;33(4):mzab141. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzab141.

Authors

Julie Gawthorne^{1

2}, Oyebola Fasugba², Chris Levi³, Elizabeth Mcinnes², Caleb Ferguson⁴, John J Mcneil⁵, Dominique A Cadilhac^{6

7}, Bronwyn Everett⁸, Ritin Fernandez⁹, Margaret Fry^{10

11}, Helen Goldsmith¹², Louise Hickman¹¹, Deborah Jackson¹¹, Jane Maguire¹¹, Edel Murray¹³, Lin Perry^{11

14}, Sandy Middleton^{1

2}

Affiliations

¹ St Vincent's Hospital Sydney, Victoria Street, Darlinghurst, NSW 2010, Australia.
² Nursing Research Institute, St Vincent's Health Network Sydney, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne and Australian Catholic University, Level 5 deLacy Building, Victoria Street, Darlinghurst, NSW 2010, Australia.
³ School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia.
⁴ Western Sydney Nursing & Midwifery Research Centre, Western Sydney Local Health District, Western Sydney University, Marcel Crescent, Blacktown, NSW 2148, Australia.
⁵ School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia.
⁶ Translational Public Health and Evaluation Division, School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University, Level 3 Hudson Institute Building, 27-31 Wright Street, Clayton, VIC 3168, Australia.
⁷ Stroke Division, The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, 245 Burgundy Street, Heidelberg, VIC 3084, Australia.
⁸ School of Nursing and Midwifery, Western Sydney University, Building EB.LG Room 81, Parramatta South Campus, Victoria Rd, Rydalmere, NSW 2116, Australia.
⁹ School of Nursing, Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Northfields Avenue, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia.
¹⁰ Royal North Shore Hospital, Reserve Road, St Leonards, Sydney, NSW 2065, Australia.
¹¹ School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, 235 Jones Street, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia.
¹² Centre for Applied Nursing Research, South Western Sydney Local Health District, Ingham Institute Level 3, 1 Campbell Street, Liverpool, NSW 2170, Australia.
¹³ St Vincent's Health Australia, Level 22, 100 William Street, Woolloomooloo, NSW 2010, Australia.
¹⁴ Prince of Wales Hospital, South East Sydney Local Health District, 320-346 Barker St, Randwick, NSW 2031, Australia.

PMID: 34613386
DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzab141

Abstract

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.

Objective: To identify participation in clinical registries, determine if registry data inform quality improvement initiatives, and 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 optimize use of registry data.

Conclusions: Registry data are generally only visible to local speciality units and not routinely used to inform quality improvement. Centralized 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.

Keywords: clinical practice improvement; clinical quality registry; clinical registry; clinical registry data; implementation science; quality improvement.

© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Quality in Health Care. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

MeSH terms

Australia
Cross-Sectional Studies
Humans
Quality Improvement*
Registries
Routinely Collected Health Data*
Surveys and Questionnaires

Grants and funding

Maridulu Budyari Gumal, Sydney Partnership for Health, Education, Research and Enterprise