Search

Abstract Background Clinical quality registries (CQR) aid in measuring, collecting and monitoring outcome data but it is still unknown how these data are used by hospitals to improve the quality of care. This study assessed the current state of outcome-based quality improvement in the Netherlands in 2022 based on data from multiple disease areas and CQRs; cardiothoracic surgery (Netherlands Heart Registration [NHR]), cardiology (NHR), nephrology, (Nefrovision), intensive care (National Intensive Care Evaluation [NICE]), and orthopaedic surgery (Dutch Arthroplasty Register [LROI]). Methods & results The Health Outcomes Management Evaluation (HOME) model was used to assess the current state of outcome-based quality improvement. A questionnaire with 36 questions was sent to healthcare departments of the six disease areas in participating hospitals within five quality registrations in the Netherlands. In total, 124 responses were received; 20 within cardiology, 12 within cardiothoracic surgery, 30 within nephrology, 35 within intensive care and 27 within orthopaedic surgery. Results showed outcome measures were actively used to improve the quality of care, several improvement initiatives were implemented, but outcomes were not always monitored regularly. Results differed between hospitals, but differences were limited between disease areas. Conclusion The current state of outcome-based quality improvement in all five disease areas is that outcome measures were consequently employed and used on a frequent basis aiming to achieve quality improvement in healthcare. Results can be improved by structurally embedding the entire improvement cycle into the organisation.

Background: Clinical quality registries (CQR) aid in measuring, collecting and monitoring outcome data but it is still unknown how these data are used by hospitals to improve the quality of care. This study assessed the current state of outcome-based quality improvement in the Netherlands in 2022 based on data from multiple disease areas and CQRs; cardiothoracic surgery (Netherlands Heart Registration [NHR]), cardiology (NHR), nephrology, (Nefrovision), intensive care (National Intensive Care Evaluation [NICE]), and orthopaedic surgery (Dutch Arthroplasty Register [LROI]). Methods & results: The Health Outcomes Management Evaluation (HOME) model was used to assess the current state of outcome-based quality improvement. A questionnaire with 36 questions was sent to healthcare departments of the six disease areas in participating hospitals within five quality registrations in the Netherlands. In total, 124 responses were received; 20 within cardiology, 12 within cardiothoracic surgery, 30 within nephrology, 35 within intensive care and 27 within orthopaedic surgery. Results showed outcome measures were actively used to improve the quality of care, several improvement initiatives were implemented, but outcomes were not always monitored regularly. Results differed between hospitals, but differences were limited between disease areas. Conclusion: The current state of outcome-based quality improvement in all five disease areas is that outcome measures were consequently employed and used on a frequent basis aiming to achieve quality improvement in healthcare. Results can be improved by structurally embedding the entire improvement cycle into the organisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents an overview of the development of an integrated patient-centred cardiac care registry spanning the initial 5 years (September 2017 to December 2022). The Netherlands Heart Registration facilitates registration committees in which mandated cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons structurally evaluate quality of care using real-world data. With consistent attendance rates exceeding 60%, a valuable network is supported. Over time, the completeness level of the registry has increased. Presently, four out of six quality registries show over 95% completeness in variables that are part of the quality policies of cardiology and cardiothoracic surgery societies. Notably, 93% of the centres voluntarily report outcomes related to open heart surgery and (trans)catheter interventions publicly. Moreover, outcomes after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and pacemaker procedures are transparently reported by 26 centres. Multiple innovation projects have been initiated by the committees, signalling a shift from publishing outcomes transparently to collaborative efforts in sharing healthcare processes and investigating improvement initiatives. The next steps will focus on the entire pathway of cardiac care for a specific medical condition instead of focusing solely on the outcomes of the procedures. This redirection of focus to a comprehensive assessment of the patient pathway in cardiac care ultimately aims to optimise outcomes for all patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]