TY - JOUR
T1 - An overview of Clinical Quality Registries (CQRs) on gynecological oncology worldwide
AU - Baldewpersad Tewarie, N.
AU - van Driel, W. J.
AU - the participants of the Dutch Gynecological Oncology Collaborator group
AU - van Ham, M. A.P.C.
AU - Wouters, M. W.
AU - Rome, R. M.
AU - Høgdall, C. K.
AU - Pagano, E.
AU - Hogberg, T.
AU - Kruitwagen, R.
AU - Kruse, A. J.
AU - Yigit, R.
AU - van der Aa, M.
AU - Mens, J. W.
AU - Stam, T. C.
AU - Diepstraten, J.
AU - van der Kolk, A.
AU - Engelen, M.
N1 - Funding Information:
None.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Authors
PY - 2022/10/1
Y1 - 2022/10/1
N2 - Introduction: Clinical Quality Registries (CQRs) were initiated in order to compare clinical outcomes between hospitals or regions within a country. To get an overview of these CQRs worldwide the aim of this study was to identify these CQRs for gynecological oncology and to summarize their characteristics, processes and QI's and to establish whether it is feasible to make an international comparison in the future. Methods: To identify CQRs in gynecological oncology a literature search in Pubmed was performed. All papers describing the use of a CQR were included. Administrative, epidemiological and cancer registries were excluded as these registries do not primarily serve to measure quality of care through QI's. The taskforce or contact person of the included CQR were asked to participate and share information on registered items, processes and indicators. Results: Five nations agreed to collaborate: Australia, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden. Denmark, Netherlands and Sweden established a nationwide registry, collecting data on multiple tumor types, and various QI's. Australia and Italy included patients with ovarian cancer only. All nations had a different process to report feedback results to participating hospitals. Conclusion: CQRs serve the same purpose to improve quality of care but vary on different aspects. Although similarities are observed in the topics measured by the QI's, an international comparison was not feasible as numerators or denominators differ between registries. In order to compare on an international level it would be useful to harmonize these registries and to set an international standard to measure the quality of care with similar indicators.
AB - Introduction: Clinical Quality Registries (CQRs) were initiated in order to compare clinical outcomes between hospitals or regions within a country. To get an overview of these CQRs worldwide the aim of this study was to identify these CQRs for gynecological oncology and to summarize their characteristics, processes and QI's and to establish whether it is feasible to make an international comparison in the future. Methods: To identify CQRs in gynecological oncology a literature search in Pubmed was performed. All papers describing the use of a CQR were included. Administrative, epidemiological and cancer registries were excluded as these registries do not primarily serve to measure quality of care through QI's. The taskforce or contact person of the included CQR were asked to participate and share information on registered items, processes and indicators. Results: Five nations agreed to collaborate: Australia, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden. Denmark, Netherlands and Sweden established a nationwide registry, collecting data on multiple tumor types, and various QI's. Australia and Italy included patients with ovarian cancer only. All nations had a different process to report feedback results to participating hospitals. Conclusion: CQRs serve the same purpose to improve quality of care but vary on different aspects. Although similarities are observed in the topics measured by the QI's, an international comparison was not feasible as numerators or denominators differ between registries. In order to compare on an international level it would be useful to harmonize these registries and to set an international standard to measure the quality of care with similar indicators.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85135526283&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ejso.2022.06.020
DO - 10.1016/j.ejso.2022.06.020
M3 - Review article
C2 - 35931589
AN - SCOPUS:85135526283
SN - 0748-7983
VL - 48
SP - 2094
EP - 2103
JO - European Journal of Surgical Oncology
JF - European Journal of Surgical Oncology
IS - 10
ER -
