Why the study?
Optimally monitoring quality of care requires including centre-level variables alongside patient-level variables in quality registries.
The development of 30 centre-level data standards for the SWEDEHEART registry aims to improve benchmarking and standardize monitoring of quality of care in cardiac rehabilitation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
New data standards enable centre-level auditing of post-MI cardiac rehabilitation in SWEDEHEART; extends registry scope but leaves open effects on care quality.
Data standards for quality registries should be evidence-based and follow guideline recommendations. To optimally monitor quality of care, not only patient-level variables, but also centre-level variables need to be included. Here we describe the development of variables to audit the structure and processes in cardiac rehabilitation for patients after myocardial infarction, and the resulting data standards to be implemented in the Swedish quality registry for cardiac disease, SWEDEHEART. The methodology used for the development of international clinical data standards for the European Unified Registries for Heart Care Evaluation and Randomised Trials (EuroHeart) was followed. Based on national guidelines for secondary prevention, candidate variables were prepared, after which a multiprofessional expert group on cardiac rehabilitation selected key variables and assured face validity. An external reference group had the role of peer reviewing, ascertaining content validity and test-retest reliability. The process has resulted in 30 data standards to be introduced into the SWEDEHEART cardiac rehabilitation registry and administered on centre-level biannually. The data standards include measures of human resources, centre requirements and process-based metrics. Including registry variables which audit centre-level structure and processes is essential to improve benchmarking and standardize monitoring of quality of care, covering both services provided and patient outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Leósdóttir et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: