Why the study?
Quality in imaging has lacked the focus seen elsewhere in cardiovascular medicine, and Australia lacked an echocardiography registry to support dynamic auditing and benchmarking.
Does real-time auditing and local reporting of echocardiographic data improve the completeness of key data element acquisition?
Does real-time auditing and local reporting of echocardiographic data improve the completeness of key data element acquisition?
Implementation of a national echocardiography registry with real-time auditing and local reporting significantly improved the completeness and reduced the variability of key echocardiographic data elements.
BACKGROUND: Despite rapid technological advances and growth, quality in imaging has not received the focus seen elsewhere in cardiovascular medicine, resulting in significant gaps between guidelines and practice. Contemporary echocardiography practice requires comprehensive real-time data collection to allow dynamic auditing and benchmarking of key performance indices. The American College of Cardiology (ACC) proposed additional data standardisation, structured reporting identifying key data elements and imaging registries. In the absence of an Australian echocardiography registry, we developed a national clinical quality registry (GenesisCare Cardiovascular Outcomes Echo Registry). We hypothesised that measurement and local reporting of data would improve compliance of echo studies with quality guidelines and hence their clinical value. METHODS AND RESULTS: We prospectively collected data on 4 099 281 echocardiographic studies entered directly into a central electronic database from 63 laboratories across four Australian states between 2010 and 2021. Real-time auditing of key data elements and introduction of quality improvement pathways were performed to maximise completeness and uniformity of data acquisition and reporting. We compared completeness of key data element acquisition (AV peak velocity, left ventricular ejection fraction, E/e', LA area, rhythm, RVSP) by time and state using de-identified data. Key performance outcomes benchmarked against the aggregated study cohort and international standards were reported to individual sites to drive quality improvement. Between 2010 and 2014 there were significant improvements in data completeness (72.0%+/-26.8% vs 86.8%+/-13.5%, p=0.02), which were maintained to 2020. In addition, interstate variability fell for both EF and E/e' (p<0.002). CONCLUSIONS: This large-scale collaboration provides a platform for the development of major quality improvement initiatives in echocardiography. Introduction of local quality assurance programmes via a unified national data set significantly improved the completeness of reporting of key echo quality measures. This in turn significantly improved the quality of, and reduced the interstate variability of, echo data. Developing a centralised database allowed rapid adoption nationally of local quality improvements.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Eccleston et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: