Australia should learn from overseas experience of reporting clinician outcomes before considering a similar program
Clinical registries systematically collect clinically relevant data regarding specific diseases or health events using standard procedures and definitions across multiple institutions. They originated as an epidemiological construct, and were designed to measure health outcomes across whole populations, originally for epidemiological and health planning purposes. More recently, the term “clinical quality registry” (CQR) has been introduced to define registries that use specific clinical quality indicators for regular confidential and benchmarked reporting to participating sites.1 CQR reporting at a hospital level acknowledges the often inextricable links between the many factors affecting patient care, including practitioner performance, support staff, facilities, care processes, and pre- and postoperative care. CQR reporting may provide early warning of potential quality issues, and when hospitals with outlying results internally review their data and processes, it may be an effective stimulus for clinical practice change.2
- 1. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. Framework for Australian clinical quality registries Sydney: ACSQHC, 2014. http://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/publications/framework-for-australian-clinical-quality-registries (accessed Mar 2017).
- 2. Hall BL, Huffman KM, Hamilton BH, et al. Profiling individual surgeon performance using information from a high-quality clinical registry: opportunities and limitations. J Am Coll Surg 2015; 221: 901-913.
- 3. Medew J. Huge variation in fees and complications among surgeons: Medibank. The Age 2016; 29 Apr. http://www.theage.com.au/national/health/huge-variation-in-fees-and-complications-among-surgeons-medibank-20160428-gohh93.html (accessed Mar 2017).
- 4. Shahian DM, Edwards FH, Jacobs JP, et al. Public reporting of cardiac surgery performance: Part 1 — History, rationale, consequences. Ann Thorac Surg 2011; 92: S2-S11.
- 5. Evans S, Millar J, Wood J, et al. The Prostate Cancer Registry: monitoring patterns and quality of care for men diagnosed with prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012; 111: E158-E166.
- 6. Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiothoracic Surgeons Database Program. Information for new sites. http://anzscts-database.org/sites/default/files/ANZSCTS%20Database%20Introduction%20160713.pdf (accessed Mar 2017).
- 7. Hannan EL, Cozzens K, King SB, et al. The New York State cardiac registries history, contributions, limitations and lessons for future efforts to assess and publicly report healthcare outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 59: 2309-2316.
- 8. Bridgewater B, Hicky GL, Cooper G. Publishing cardiac surgery mortality rates: lessons for other specialties. BMJ 2013; 346: f1139.
- 9. UK Government. MyNHS. https://www.nhs.uk/Service-Search/performance/search (accessed Mar 2017).
- 10. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. MyHospitals. http://www.myhospitals.gov.au/about-myhospitals/overview#performance-indicator-reporting (accessed Mar 2017).
- 11. Campanella P, Vukovic V, Parente P, et al. The impact of public reporting on clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Health Serv Res 2016; 16: 296.
- 12. Bolsin S, Barach P. The role and influence of public reporting on pediatric cardiac care outcome data. Prog Pediatr Cardiol 2012; 33: 99-101.
- 13. Behrendt K, Groene O. Mechanisms and effects of public reporting of surgeon outcomes: a systematic review of the literature. Health Policy 2016; 120: 1151-1161.
- 14. Walker K, Neuburger OG, Cromwell DA, van der Meulen J. Public reporting of surgeon outcomes: low numbers of procedures lead to low false complacency. Lancet 2013; 382: 1674-1677.
- 15. Shahian DM, Edwards FH, Jacobs J, et al. Public reporting of cardiac surgery performance: Part 2 — Implementation. Ann Thorac Surg 2011; 92: S12-S23.
- 16. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. Prioritised list of clinical domains for clinical quality registry development. Final report. Sydney: ACSQHC, 2016. https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Prioritised-list-of-clinical-domains-for-clinical-quality-registry-development-Final-report-Nov-2016.pdf (accessed Mar 2017).
- 17. Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. A guide to surgical audit and peer review: reviewing the outcomes of surgical care. 4th ed. Melbourne, RACS, 2013. http://www.surgeons.org/media/20671311/surgical_audit_and_peer_review_guide_2014.pdf (accessed Mar 2017).
Publication of your online response is subject to the Medical Journal of Australia's editorial discretion. You will be notified by email within five working days should your response be accepted.