Key result
Routine social insurance data complements primary registries for vascular quality improvement and research.
Why the study?
The complexity and diversity of surgical/interventional vascular medicine necessitate innovative and pragmatic solutions for valid, long-term measurement of quality of care.
Routinely collected insurance data can complement primary registry data for long-term quality of care measurement in surgical and interventional vascular medicine.
May support linked insurance data for vascular quality tracking; leaves open validation and linkage standards.
The complexity and diversity of surgical/interventional vascular medicine necessitate innovative and pragmatic solutions for the valid measurement of the quality of care in the long term. The secondary utilization of routinely collected data from social insurance institutions has increasingly become the focus of interdisciplinary medicine over the years. Owing to their longitudinal linkage and pan-sector generation, routinely collected data make it possible to answer important questions and can complement quality development projects with primary registry data. Various guidelines exist for their usage, linkage, and reporting. Studies have shown good validity, especially for endpoints with major clinical relevance. The numerous advantages of routinely collected data face several challenges that require thorough plausibility and validity procedures and distinctive methodological expertise. This review presents a discussion of these advantages and challenges and provides recommendations for starting to use this increasingly important source of data.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peters et al. (2020) conducted a review in Vascular diseases. Routinely collected data analysis vs. Primary registry data was evaluated. Routinely collected data from social insurance institutions provide a valuable complement to primary registry data for long-term quality improvement and health services research in vascular medicine.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: