Exploring limits for data registration in the context of PROCARE, a quality improvement project on rectal cancer.
Details
Serval ID
serval:BIB_166E87AA2EB1
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Exploring limits for data registration in the context of PROCARE, a quality improvement project on rectal cancer.
Journal
Acta Chirurgica Belgica
Contributor(s)
PROCARE , Bertrand C., De Coninck D., Duinslaeger M., Kartheuser A., Penninckx F., Van de Stadt J., Vaneerdeweg W., Claeys D., Burnon D., Haustermans K., Scalliet P., Spaas P., Demetter P., Jouret-Mourin A., Sempoux C., Demey W., Humblet Y., Van Cutsem E., Laurent S., Van Cutsem E., Van Laethem J., Danse E., Op de Beeck B., Smeets P., Melange M., Rahier J., Cabooter M., Pattyn P., Peeters M., Buset M., Haeck L., Mansvelt B., Van Eycken E., Dercq JP., Thijs A.
ISSN
0001-5458 (Print)
ISSN-L
0001-5458
Publication state
Published
Issued date
2012
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
112
Number
1
Pages
15-23
Language
english
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tPublication Status: ppublish
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A high burden of registration in the context of quality improvement projects may result in registration fatigue.
METHODS: Time required for data collection and registration was measured. Quality of care indicators (QCI) were scored and factors for adjusted benchmarking were identified. The PROCARE data set was compared with 5 other European data sets.
RESULTS: Time required for data collection varied per domain while time for registration was more uniform. On average, per item 33 seconds were needed for collection and registration. The number of data to be registered per patient was 48-276, depending on the stage of the disease, resulting in a minimum of 25 minutes and a maximum of 2 hours 4 minutes per patient, follow-up not included. Focusing on 43 clinically relevant QCIs would result in a 50% reduction, using aggregate scores for performance audit in a 71% reduction. The PROCARE data set was larger than comparable European data sets. Linkage of the PROCARE database with administrative databases provided confident data on the patients' survival status, but did not appear to be a practical option for other QCIs.
CONCLUSIONS: Limiting the aim to performance audit could significantly reduce the burden of registration. In the context of a quality improvement project, the PROCARE Steering Group concluded that detailed clinical data from all centres are still required, which can be reconsidered in the future. Maintenance of a specific database remains of crucial value. Data collection and registration cannot be based on benevolence but should be compensated for.
METHODS: Time required for data collection and registration was measured. Quality of care indicators (QCI) were scored and factors for adjusted benchmarking were identified. The PROCARE data set was compared with 5 other European data sets.
RESULTS: Time required for data collection varied per domain while time for registration was more uniform. On average, per item 33 seconds were needed for collection and registration. The number of data to be registered per patient was 48-276, depending on the stage of the disease, resulting in a minimum of 25 minutes and a maximum of 2 hours 4 minutes per patient, follow-up not included. Focusing on 43 clinically relevant QCIs would result in a 50% reduction, using aggregate scores for performance audit in a 71% reduction. The PROCARE data set was larger than comparable European data sets. Linkage of the PROCARE database with administrative databases provided confident data on the patients' survival status, but did not appear to be a practical option for other QCIs.
CONCLUSIONS: Limiting the aim to performance audit could significantly reduce the burden of registration. In the context of a quality improvement project, the PROCARE Steering Group concluded that detailed clinical data from all centres are still required, which can be reconsidered in the future. Maintenance of a specific database remains of crucial value. Data collection and registration cannot be based on benevolence but should be compensated for.
Keywords
Belgium, Chemoradiotherapy, Adjuvant, Humans, Neoadjuvant Therapy, Quality Improvement/organization & administration, Quality Indicators, Health Care/standards, Rectal Neoplasms/surgery, Rectal Neoplasms/therapy, Registries/standards, Registries/statistics & numerical data
Pubmed
Web of science
Create date
20/10/2016 16:43
Last modification date
20/08/2019 13:46
Usage data
