Registration bias in a clinical quality register

Abstract

Background and aims The quality of medical quality registers is poorly defined and lack of trust in data due to low completeness may be a major barrier against their use in quality improvement interventions. The aim of the current observational study was to explore how selective reporting may influence adverse events registered in the Norwegian quality register for colonoscopy (Gastronet).

Materials and methods Gastronet’s database includes data provided by endoscopists, nurses and patients. All outpatient colonoscopies reported to Gastronet in 2015 were included and compared to the total number of colonoscopies performed in Norway as retrieved from the National Patient Registry. Hospitals were categorized into four groups according to reporting completeness < 50 %, 50 % to 69 %, 70 % to 89 % and ≥ 90 %. The number of recorded adverse events (AEs) and procedure time were analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression models were fitted to explore independent factors for selection bias.

Results A total of 22,364 colonoscopies were reported to the National Patient Register of which 15,855 (71 %) were registered in Gastronet. Feedback was received from 11,079 patients (50 %). The frequency of AEs increased from 0.6 % in completeness group < 50 % to 1.6 % in completeness group ≥ 90 % (P < 0.001). Long colonoscopy procedure time was associated with low reporting completeness. Patient feedback was associated with older age, cecal intubation success and sedation-free colonoscopy.

Conclusion Incomplete registration in a colonoscopy quality register is associated with underreporting of AEs. Longer procedure time, a surrogate marker for time constraint, is associated with low completeness.

• References

• 1 Black N. To do the service no harm: the dangers of quality assessment. J Health Services Res Policy 2015; 20: 65-66
• 2 Rahr-Wagner L, Thillemann TM, Lind MC. et al. Validation of 14,500 operated knees registered in the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Register: registration completeness and validity of key variables. Clin Epidemiol 2013; 5: 219-228
• 3 Gundtoft PH, Varnum C, Pedersen AB. et al. The Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Clin Epidemiol 2016; 8: 509-514
• Williams TW, Mercer MR, Mucha JP. et al. Code coverage, what does it mean in terms of quality? Proceedings. Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium 2001.. IEEE; 2001: 420-424
• 5 van der Veer SN, de Keizer NF. et al. Improving quality of care. A systematic review on how medical registries provide information feedback to health care providers. Int J Medical Inform 2010; 79: 305-323
• 6 Appelros P, Samuelsson M, Karlsson-Tivenius S. et al. A national stroke quality register: 12 years experience from a participating hospital. Eur J Neurol 2007; 14: 890-894
• 7 Hoff G, de Lange T, Bretthauer M. et al. Patient-reported adverse events after colonoscopy in Norway. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 745-753
• 8 Simpson KR. Measuring perinatal patient safety: review of current methods. J Obst Gyn Neonatal Nursing 2006; 35: 432-442
• 9 Filker PJ, Muckey EJ, Kelner SM. et al. Taking a quality assurance program from paper to electronic health records: one dental school's experience. J Dental Ed 2009; 73: 1095-1101
• 10 Valori R, Sint Nicolaas J, de Jonge V. Quality assurance of endoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. Best Practi Res Clinl Gastroenterol 2010; 24: 451-464
• 11 Hutchins M, Foster H, Gordia T. et al. Experiments on the effectiveness of dataflow- and controlflow-based test adequacy criteria. IEEE 1994; 191-200
• 12 Tu JV, Willison DJ, Silver FL. et al. Investigators in the Registry of the Canadian Stroke N: Impracticability of informed consent in the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network. N Engl J Med 2004; 350: 1414-1421
• 13 Jacobsen SJ, Xia Z, Campion ME. et al. Potential effect of authorization bias on medical record research. Mayo Clin Proc 1999; 74: 330-338
• 14 Al-Shahi R, Warlow C. Using patient-identifiable data for observational research and audit. BMJ 2000; 321: 1031-1032
• 15 Miller FG. Research on medical records without informed consent. J Law Med Ethics 2008; 36: 560-566
• 16 Hoff G. Quality assurance in gastroenterology: QA in research, and research in QA. Best Pract Research Clin Gastroenterol 2011; 25: 427-434
• 17 Hoff G, Ottestad PM, Skaflotten SR. et al. Quality assurance as an integrated part of the electronic medical record – a prototype applied for colonoscopy. Scand J Gastroenterol 2009; 44: 1259-1265
• 18 Kho ME, Duffett M, Willison DJ. et al. Written informed consent and selection bias in observational studies using medical records: systematic review. BMJ 2009; 338: b866