Summary points
What was known before this study?
- •
there is no empirical
Many medical registries give information feedback to healthcare professionals on a continuous basis [1], even though there is no empirical basis for deciding how this feedback is best provided [2]. Therefore registries and health care professionals need to ascertain which way works best, so that giving feedback will become a more reliable approach to quality improvement and opportunities for improvement will not be missed. Therefore, this paper focuses on how medical registries give information feedback and on its effect on the quality of care.
As a result of governmental regulations, public demand, but also at their own initiative, more and more health care organizations have started to collect data in medical registries [1], [3], [4]. We define a medical registry as a systematic and continuous collection of a defined data set for patients with specific health characteristics. The data are held in a central database for a predefined purpose and information is submitted by multiple units (e.g. hospitals or cardiac surgery departments). Whereas in the past the focus of these registries was on health care planning and epidemiological research, nowadays many of them are also used for accountability and quality improvement (QI). They may provide health care professionals with insight into their performance, motivate change and drive QI activities [5]. To gain insight into professionals’ performance, structured data from registries play a central role in the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle, especially when planning improvement activities and studying if these activities have been effective [6], [7]. Information feedback is a way to present these data to caregivers in a structured way, varying from a yearly paper report containing data aggregated for all participants together to a website where participants can have access to the most recent data, with the possibility of comparing their own results to that of their peers or to a national average. In addition to being a common approach to quality improvement, giving feedback to the original data providers is also a basic requirement for registries when aiming to increase the quality of the data and to motivate providers to collect data as part of their routine work [1], [8], [9]. In their review, Jamtvedt and co-workers concluded that audit and information feedback can be effective in improving professional practice. However, they also found that decisions about how to provide information feedback must be guided by pragmatic factors and local circumstances [2]. So from their review it remains unclear exactly which information feedback strategy works best.
Jamtvedt et al. reviewed information feedback based on any health care data source, while we focused on feedback based on data from medical registries. As medical registries combine data from different facilities, benchmarking the performance of individual facilities is an important feature. Due to their ability of being used for benchmarking, registries are often used in continuous QI initiatives. In addition, Jamtvedt's review was limited to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Although randomized studies are seen as the optimal design for evaluating the effect of improvement strategies [10], observational studies are also valuable in understanding and evaluating such interventions [11], [12], [13]. Hence, we aimed to include not only RCTs, but any peer-reviewed paper on information feedback within the context of a medical registry. Furthermore, where Jamtvedt et al. only reported on the effectiveness of information feedback, we also aimed to identify the barriers and success factors to this effectiveness as reported in the literature. Knowledge on possible barriers and success factors might influence both type and content of the feedback strategy [14]. QI strategies tailored to such potential barriers and success factors are more likely to be effective [15], [16], [17].
Our systematic review is aimed at health care professionals and others that are starting or running a medical registry and (are planning to) provide information feedback to their participants. As we identified barriers and success factors, this paper is also relevant for health care providers who receive feedback from a registry and who wish to use this information for their local quality improvement practice.
The objectives of this paper were to determine (1) how medical registries provide information feedback to health care professionals, (2) whether this feedback has any effect on the quality of care and (3) the barriers and success factors for using this feedback for quality improvement.
We searched MEDLINE Pubmed for original articles in English for the period January 1990 to August 2007. We used MeSH terms referring to medical registries (databases (factual), registries), combining them with MeSH terms referring to QI strategies (quality indicators, concurrent/utilization review, total quality management, benchmarking, program evaluation, peer-review health care, medical/nursing audit) and MeSH terms related to other aspects of quality of care (outcome/process assessment
After removing duplicates our search strategy resulted in 3459 original articles and 145 reviews and editorials. Initial screening of titles and abstracts resulted in 146 original articles for full text screening and 108 reviews eligible for hand searching the reference lists. These reference lists contained 2764 references, 41 of which we selected for full text screening. Finally, we included 53 papers in total (see Fig. 1 for the search flow), 24 of which were classified as analytic. The most
In this review we aimed to determine how medical registries provide feedback to health care professionals, assess its effect on the quality of care and identify barriers and success factors for this effectiveness.
In our systematic review 53 papers were included, describing 50 diverse feedback initiatives. We found that medical registries mainly provided quarterly paper reports to healthcare facilities. The reports typically contained data aggregated on the facility level regarding process and
Our review shows that the literature on the methods and effects of information feedback by registries is heterogeneous, which makes it difficult to make straightforward comparisons between feedback initiatives and to draw definite conclusion on the effectiveness of feedback. Although the effect of feedback on the quality of care remains unclear, the positive effects of feedback provided by medical registries cannot be ignored. Our review confirms the findings from earlier studies that process
KJ, NK and AR had the basic idea for this study. SV and ST were primarily responsible for designing and executing the search strategy. SV, KJ, NK and AR reviewed the titles and abstracts, included the relevant papers and completed the data abstraction forms. SV drafted the manuscript. All authors were involved in the critical revision of the paper for important intellectual content and its final approval before submission. Summary points What was known before this study? there is no empirical
To do so, the proportion of ICU admissions within each contributing hospital, and the proportion of ICUs within each country must be high. This is essential to ensure valid data, maintain stakeholder trust, and improve the effectiveness of feedback [2]. Timely, structured feedback, often classified into indicators of how patient care is organised (structure), conducted (process), or what is achieved (outcome), is essential.