The Use of Clinical Registries in the United States: A Landscape Survey
- PMID: 29930965
- PMCID: PMC5994955
- DOI: 10.5334/egems.248
The Use of Clinical Registries in the United States: A Landscape Survey
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.
References
-
- Gliklich, et al. Registries for Evaluating Patient Outcomes: A User’s Guide. 3rd ed. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2014. - PubMed
-
- Levay C. Policies to foster quality improvement registries: lessons from the Swedish case. Journal of internal medicine. 2016; 279(2): p. 160–172. - PubMed
-
- Carroll JD. Transcatheter valve therapy registry is a model for medical device innovation and surveillance. Health Affairs. 2015; 34(2): p. 328–334. - PubMed
-
- Krucoff MW. ASSLTN. Bridging unmet medical device ecosystem needs with strategically coordinated registries networks. Jama. 2015; 314(16): p. 1691–1692. - PubMed
-
- PCPI. [Online].; 2016. [cited 2017 March 11. Available from: http://www.thepcpi.org/pcpi/media/documents/nqrn-what-is-clinical-regist....
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources