Cargando…

Data quality audit of a clinical quality registry: a generic framework and case study of the Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry

OBJECTIVES: The value of a clinical quality registry is contingent on the quality of its data. This study aims to pilot methodology for data quality audits of the Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry, a clinical quality registry of hip fracture clinical care and secondary fracture preven...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tan, Aidan Christopher, Armstrong, Elizabeth, Close, Jacqueline, Harris, Ian Andrew
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6668898/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31414056
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2018-000490
_version_ 1783440289769193472
author Tan, Aidan Christopher
Armstrong, Elizabeth
Close, Jacqueline
Harris, Ian Andrew
author_facet Tan, Aidan Christopher
Armstrong, Elizabeth
Close, Jacqueline
Harris, Ian Andrew
author_sort Tan, Aidan Christopher
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The value of a clinical quality registry is contingent on the quality of its data. This study aims to pilot methodology for data quality audits of the Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry, a clinical quality registry of hip fracture clinical care and secondary fracture prevention. METHODS: A data quality audit was performed by independently replicating the data collection and entry process for 163 randomly selected patient records from three contributing hospitals, and then comparing the replicated data set to the registry data set. Data agreement, as a proxy indicator of data accuracy, and data completeness were assessed. RESULTS: An overall data agreement of 82.3% and overall data completeness of 95.6% were found, reflecting a moderate level of data accuracy and a very high level of data completeness. Half of all data disagreements were caused by information discrepancies, a quarter by missing discrepancies and a quarter by time, date and number discrepancies. Transcription discrepancies only accounted for 1 in every 50 data disagreements. The sources of inaccurate and incomplete data have been identified with the intention of implementing data quality improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Regular audits of data abstraction are necessary to improve data quality, assure data validity and reliability and guarantee the integrity and credibility of registry outputs. A generic framework and model for data quality audits of clinical quality registries is proposed, consisting of a three-step data abstraction audit, registry coverage audit and four-step data quality improvement process. Factors to consider for data abstraction audits include: central, remote or local implementation; single-stage or multistage random sampling; absolute, proportional, combination or alternative sample size calculation; data quality indicators; regular or ad hoc frequency; and qualitative assessment.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6668898
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66688982019-08-14 Data quality audit of a clinical quality registry: a generic framework and case study of the Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry Tan, Aidan Christopher Armstrong, Elizabeth Close, Jacqueline Harris, Ian Andrew BMJ Open Qual Original Article OBJECTIVES: The value of a clinical quality registry is contingent on the quality of its data. This study aims to pilot methodology for data quality audits of the Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry, a clinical quality registry of hip fracture clinical care and secondary fracture prevention. METHODS: A data quality audit was performed by independently replicating the data collection and entry process for 163 randomly selected patient records from three contributing hospitals, and then comparing the replicated data set to the registry data set. Data agreement, as a proxy indicator of data accuracy, and data completeness were assessed. RESULTS: An overall data agreement of 82.3% and overall data completeness of 95.6% were found, reflecting a moderate level of data accuracy and a very high level of data completeness. Half of all data disagreements were caused by information discrepancies, a quarter by missing discrepancies and a quarter by time, date and number discrepancies. Transcription discrepancies only accounted for 1 in every 50 data disagreements. The sources of inaccurate and incomplete data have been identified with the intention of implementing data quality improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Regular audits of data abstraction are necessary to improve data quality, assure data validity and reliability and guarantee the integrity and credibility of registry outputs. A generic framework and model for data quality audits of clinical quality registries is proposed, consisting of a three-step data abstraction audit, registry coverage audit and four-step data quality improvement process. Factors to consider for data abstraction audits include: central, remote or local implementation; single-stage or multistage random sampling; absolute, proportional, combination or alternative sample size calculation; data quality indicators; regular or ad hoc frequency; and qualitative assessment. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-07-17 /pmc/articles/PMC6668898/ /pubmed/31414056 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2018-000490 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Original Article
Tan, Aidan Christopher
Armstrong, Elizabeth
Close, Jacqueline
Harris, Ian Andrew
Data quality audit of a clinical quality registry: a generic framework and case study of the Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry
title Data quality audit of a clinical quality registry: a generic framework and case study of the Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry
title_full Data quality audit of a clinical quality registry: a generic framework and case study of the Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry
title_fullStr Data quality audit of a clinical quality registry: a generic framework and case study of the Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry
title_full_unstemmed Data quality audit of a clinical quality registry: a generic framework and case study of the Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry
title_short Data quality audit of a clinical quality registry: a generic framework and case study of the Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry
title_sort data quality audit of a clinical quality registry: a generic framework and case study of the australian and new zealand hip fracture registry
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6668898/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31414056
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2018-000490
work_keys_str_mv AT tanaidanchristopher dataqualityauditofaclinicalqualityregistryagenericframeworkandcasestudyoftheaustralianandnewzealandhipfractureregistry
AT armstrongelizabeth dataqualityauditofaclinicalqualityregistryagenericframeworkandcasestudyoftheaustralianandnewzealandhipfractureregistry
AT closejacqueline dataqualityauditofaclinicalqualityregistryagenericframeworkandcasestudyoftheaustralianandnewzealandhipfractureregistry
AT harrisianandrew dataqualityauditofaclinicalqualityregistryagenericframeworkandcasestudyoftheaustralianandnewzealandhipfractureregistry