A National Survey of Patient Data Capture, Management, Reporting Practice in Australian Cardiac Rehabilitation Programs

BackgroundLack of service data for cardiac rehabilitation limits understanding of program delivery, benchmarking and quality improvement. This study aimed to describe current practices, management, utilisation and engagement with quality indicators in Australian programs.MethodCardiac rehabilitation programs (n=396) were identified from national directories and networks. Program coordinators were surveyed on service data capture, management systems and adoption of published national quality indicators. Text responses were coded and classified. Logistic regression determined independent associates of the use of data for quality improvement.ResultsA total of 319 (81%) coordinators completed the survey. Annual patient enrolments/programs were >200 (31.0%), 51−200 (46%) and ≤50 (23%). Most (79%) programs used an electronic system, alongside paper (63%) and/or another electronic system (19%), with 21% completely paper. While 84% knew of the national quality indicators, only 52% used them. Supplementary to patient care, data were used for reports to managers (57%) and funders (41%), to improve quality (56%), support funding (43%) and research (31%). Using data for quality improvement was more likely when enrolments where >200 (Odds ratio [OR] 3.83, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.76−8.34) and less likely in Victoria (OR 0.24 95%, CI 0.08−0.77), New South Wales (OR 0.25 95%, CI 0.08−0.76) and Western Australia (OR 0.16 95%, CI 0.05−0.57).ConclusionsThe collection of service data for cardiac rehabilitation patient data and its justification is diverse, limiting our capacity to benchmark and drive clinical practice. The findings strengthen the case for a national low-burden approach to data capture for quality care. Lack of service data for cardiac rehabilitation limits understanding of program delivery, benchmarking and quality improvement. This study aimed to describe current practices, management, utilisation and engagement with quality indicators in Australian programs. Cardiac rehabilitation programs (n=396) were identified from national directories and networks. Program coordinators were surveyed on service data capture, management systems and adoption of published national quality indicators. Text responses were coded and classified. Logistic regression determined independent associates of the use of data for quality improvement. A total of 319 (81%) coordinators completed the survey. Annual patient enrolments/programs were >200 (31.0%), 51−200 (46%) and ≤50 (23%). Most (79%) programs used an electronic system, alongside paper (63%) and/or another electronic system (19%), with 21% completely paper. While 84% knew of the national quality indicators, only 52% used them. Supplementary to patient care, data were used for reports to managers (57%) and funders (41%), to improve quality (56%), support funding (43%) and research (31%). Using data for quality improvement was more likely when enrolments where >200 (Odds ratio [OR] 3.83, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.76−8.34) and less likely in Victoria (OR 0.24 95%, CI 0.08−0.77), New South Wales (OR 0.25 95%, CI 0.08−0.76) and Western Australia (OR 0.16 95%, CI 0.05−0.57). The collection of service data for cardiac rehabilitation patient data and its justification is diverse, limiting our capacity to benchmark and drive clinical practice. The findings strengthen the case for a national low-burden approach to data capture for quality care.