Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Methods Inf Med 2024; 63(03/04): 066-076
DOI: 10.1055/a-2511-7866
Original Article for a Focus Theme

The Significance of Information Quality for the Secondary Use of the Information in the National Health Care Quality Registers in Finland

Anna Frondelius
1   Department of Health and Social Management, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland
,
Ulla-Mari Kinnunen
1   Department of Health and Social Management, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland
2   Research Center for Nursing Science and Social and Health Management, Wellbeing Services County of North Savo, Kuopio, Finland
,
Vesa Jormanainen
3   Department of Clients and Services in Healthcare and Social Welfare, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Helsinki, Finland
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
  Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background The aim of the national health care quality registers is to monitor, assess, and improve the quality of care. The information utilized in quality registers must be of high quality to ensure that the information produced by the registers is reliable and useful. In Finland, one of the key sources of information for the quality registers is the national Kanta services.

Objectives The objective of the study was to increase understanding of the significance of information quality for the secondary use of the information in the national health care quality registers and to provide information on whether the information quality of the national Kanta services supports the information needs of the national quality registers, and how information quality should be developed.

Methods The research data were collected by interviewing six experts responsible for national health care quality registers, and it was analyzed using theory-driven qualitative content analysis based on the DeLone and McLean model.

Results Based on the results, the relevance of the information in the Kanta services met the information needs of the national quality registers. However, due to the limited amount of structured information and deficiencies in the completeness of the information, relevant information could not be fully utilized. Deficiencies in information quality posed challenges in information retrieval and hindered drawing conclusions in reporting. Challenges in information quality did not diminish the intention to use the information when information was considered relevant. Solutions to improve information quality included structuring, development of documentation practices, patient information systems and quality assurance, as well as collaboration among stakeholders.

Conclusion The Kanta services' information is relevant for the national health care quality registers, but developing the quality of the information, especially in terms of structures and completeness, is the key to fully enabling the secondary use of this information.

Keywords

information - information quality - secondary use - quality register

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 26 May 2024

Accepted: 16 December 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
08 January 2025

Article published online:
29 January 2025

© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Liden Mascher K, Jacobsson Ekman G, Bartels PD. et al. Guide for International Research on Patient Quality Registries in the Nordic Countries. . Accessed April 28, 2024 at: https://www.kvalitetsregistre.no/sites/default/files/nordicguidancedocument_quality_registries_final_for_web.pdf
  • 2 Emilsson L, Lindahl B, Köster M, Lambe M, Ludvigsson JF. Review of 103 Swedish healthcare quality registries. J Intern Med 2015; 277 (01) 94-136
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 3 Mainz J, Kristensen S, Bartels P. Quality improvement and accountability in the Danish health care system. Int J Qual Health Care 2015; 27 (06) 523-527
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 4 Nelson EC, Dixon-Woods M, Batalden PB. et al. Patient focused registries can improve health, care, and science. BMJ 2016; 354: i3319
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 5 Regulation of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health on the Quality Registers of the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, 801/2022. Issued at Helsinki on September 1, 2022
  • 6 Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare. The Reports of the National Quality Registers. Updated February 20, 2024. Accessed April 29, 2024 at: https://thl.fi/aiheet/sote-palvelujen-johtaminen/arviointi-ja-seuranta/sote-tietopohja/terveydenhuollon-kansalliset-laaturekisterit/kansallisten-laaturekisterien-raportit
  • 7 Chen H, Hailey D, Wang N, Yu P. A review of data quality assessment methods for public health information systems. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2014; 11 (05) 5170-5207
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 8 Safran C. Update on data reuse in health care. Yearb Med Inform 2017; 26 (01) 24-27
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 9 Ikonen T, Komulainen J, Vuokko R. et al. Client group-specific information on the quality and effectiveness for knowledge-based management and guidance within healthcare and social welfare—Position of quality registers in the service system. Reports and memoranda of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health; 2019: 70 . Accessed April 28, 2024 at: http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-00-4129-8
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 10 Liaw ST, Rahimi A, Ray P. et al. Towards an ontology for data quality in integrated chronic disease management: a realist review of the literature. Int J Med Inform 2013; 82 (01) 10-24
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 11 Liu C, Talaei-Khoei A, Storey VC, Peng G. A review of the state of the art of data quality in healthcare. J Glob Inf Manage 2023; 31 (01) 1-18
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 12 DeLone WH, McLean ER. The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. J Manage Inf Syst 2003; 19 (04) 9-30
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 13 Nelson R, Staggers N. Theoretical foundations of health informatics. In: Nelson R, Staggers N. Health Informatics: An Interprofessional Approach. Saint Louis, Missouri, United States: Elsevier; 2014: 18-39
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 14 Feder SL. Data quality in electronic health records research: quality domains and assessment methods. West J Nurs Res 2018; 40 (05) 753-766
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 15 Wang R, Strong DM. Beyond accuracy: what data quality means to data consumers. J Manage Inf Syst 1996; 12: 5-33
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 16 Nelson RR, Todd PA, Wixom BH. Antecedents of information and system quality: an empirical examination within the context of data warehousing. J Manage Inf Syst 2005; 21 (04) 199-235
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 17 Gorla N, Somers TM, Wong B. Organizational impact of system quality, information quality and service quality. J Strateg Inf Syst 2010; 19: 207-228
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 18 Wager KA, Lee FW, Glaser JP. Health care data quality. In: Health Care Information Systems: A Practical Approach for Health Care Management. Third Edition.. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons Incorporated; 2013: 49-65
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 19 Razzaghi H, Greenberg J, Bailey LC. Developing a systematic approach to assessing data quality in secondary use of clinical data based on intended use. Learn Health Syst 2021; 6 (01) e10264
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 20 Weiskopf NG, Weng C. Methods and dimensions of electronic health record data quality assessment: enabling reuse for clinical research. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013; 20 (01) 144-151
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 21 Petter S, DeLone W, McLean ER. Information systems success: the quest for the independent variables. J Manage Inf Syst 2013; 29 (04) 7-62
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 22 Weiskopf NG, Hripcsak G, Swaminathan S, Weng C. Defining and measuring completeness of electronic health records for secondary use. J Biomed Inform 2013; 46 (05) 830-836
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 23 Vuokko R, Mäkelä-Bengs P, Hyppönen H, Lindqvist M, Doupi P. Impacts of structuring the electronic health record: results of a systematic literature review from the perspective of secondary use of patient data. Int J Med Inform 2017; 97: 293-303
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 24 Edmondson ME, Reimer AP. Challenges frequently encountered in the secondary use of electronic medical record data for research. Comput Inform Nurs 2020; 38 (07) 338-348
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 25 Garies S, McBrien K, Quan H, Manca D, Drummond N, Williamson T. A data quality assessment to inform hypertension surveillance using primary care electronic medical record data from Alberta, Canada. BMC Public Health 2021; 21 (01) 264
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 26 Riley M, Robinson K, Kilkenny MF, Leggat SG. The suitability of government health information assets for secondary use in research: a fit-for-purpose analysis. HIM J 2023; 52 (03) 157-166
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 27 Kahn BK, Strong DM, Wang RY. Information quality benchmarks: product and service performance. Commun ACM 2002; 45 (04) 184-192
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 28 Statistics Finland. Data quality criteria and indicators – a proposal for a recommendation. Accessed April 27, 2024 at: https://stat.fi/media/uploads/org/tiedon-laatukehikko/data_quality_criteria_and_indicators_-_a_proposal_for_a_recommendation.pdf
  • 29 Adolfsson ET, Rosenblad A. Reporting systems, reporting rates and completeness of data reported from primary healthcare to a Swedish quality register–the National Diabetes Register. Int J Med Inform 2011; 80 (09) 663-668
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 30 Govatsmark RES, Janszky I, Slørdahl SA. et al. Completeness and correctness of acute myocardial infarction diagnoses in a medical quality register and an administrative health register. Scand J Public Health 2020; 48 (01) 5-13
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 31 Chorostowska-Wynimko J, Wencker M, Horváth I. The importance of effective registries in pulmonary diseases and how to optimize their output. Chron Respir Dis 2019; 16: 1479973119881777
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 32 Hoff G, de Lange T, Bretthauer M. et al. Registration bias in a clinical quality register. Endosc Int Open 2019; 7 (01) E90-E98
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 33 Madan A, Dubey SK. Usability evaluation methods: a literature review. Int J Eng Sci Technol 2012; 4 (02) 590-599
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 34 Petter S, DeLone WH, McLean ER. Measuring information systems success: models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. Eur J Inf Syst 2008; 17 (03) 236-263
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 35 Kauvo T, Virkkunen H. General guide to patient information documentation. Version 5.0. Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare. . Accessed April 27, 2024 at: https://yhteistyotilat.fi/wiki08/display/JULPOKY
  • 36 Ebbers T, Kool RB, Smeele LE. et al. The impact of structured and standardized documentation on documentation quality; a multicenter, retrospective study. J Med Syst 2022; 46 (07) 46
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 37 Petter S, McLean ER. A meta-analytic assessment of the DeLone and McLean IS success model: an examination of IS success at the individual level. Inf Manage 2009; 46 (03) 159-166
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 38 Chang HC, Liu CF, Hwang HG. Exploring nursing e-learning systems success based on information system success model. Comput Inform Nurs 2011; 29 (12) 741-747
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 39 Petter S, Fruhling A. Evaluating the success of an emergency response medical information system. Int J Med Inform 2011; 80 (07) 480-489
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 40 Cho KW, Bae SK, Ryu JH, Kim KN, An CH, Chae YM. Performance evaluation of public hospital information systems by the information system success model. Healthc Inform Res 2015; 21 (01) 43-48
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 41 Malenka DJ, Bhatt DL, Bradley SM. et al. The national cardiovascular data registry data quality program 2020: JACC State-of-the-Art Review. J Am Coll Cardiol 2022; 79 (17) 1704-1712
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 42 Kanta. What are the Kanta Services?. Accessed April 26, 2024 at: https://www.kanta.fi/en/professionals/what-are-kanta-services
  • 43 Hiltunen P, Jalonen M, Porrasmaa J, Ikonen T, Vuokko R. National diabetes quality register: preliminary study on data content and development path. Reports and memoranda of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health 2019:2; 2019. . Accessed April 26, 2024 at: http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-00-4024-6
  • 44 Jonsson PM, Pikkujämsä S, Heiliö P-L. National quality registers in healthcare and social services - operating model, organization and financing. Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare Report 16/2019. . Accessed April 28, 2024 at: https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-343-420-2
  • 45 Metso S, Tahkola A, Vanhamäki S. et al. Valtava project: main report of the diabetes register. Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare. . Accessed April 28, 2024 at: https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-343-846-0
  • 46 Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. Strategy for digitalization and information management in healthcare and social welfare. Publications of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health 2024:1. January 12, 2024. Accessed May 6, 2024 at: http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-00-5404-5
  • 47 European Commission. European health data space. 2024 . Accessed April 27, 2024 at: https://health.ec.europa.eu/ehealth-digital-health-and-care/european-health-data-space_en
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 48 Frondelius A. The significance of the information quality of the Kanta services for the secondary use of the information in the National Healthcare Quality Registers [Master's thesis]. Kuopio: University of Eastern Finland; 2024
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 49 Staller KM. Big enough? Sampling in qualitative inquiry. Qual Soc Work 2021; 20 (04) 897-904
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 50 Liamputtong P. Focus group methodology and principles. In: Liamputtong P. eds. Focus Group Methodology: Principles and Practice. SAGE Publications Ltd; 2011: 31-49
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 51 Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs 2008; 62 (01) 107-115
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 52 Personal data register act of Finland 471/1987. Issued in Helsinki on April 30, 1987
  • 53 EU's General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679. Issued in Brussels on April 27, 2016
  • 54 Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK. The Finnish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and Procedures for Handling Alleged Violations of Research Integrity in Finland; 2023. Accessed April 27, 2024 at: https://tenk.fi/sites/default/files/2023-11/RI_Guidelines_2023.pdf
  • 55 Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK. The ethical principles of research with human participants and ethical review in the human sciences in Finland. Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK guidelines; 2019. . Accessed April 27, 2024 at: https://tenk.fi/sites/default/files/2021-01/Ethical_review_in_human_sciences_2020.pdf
  • 56 Korstjens I, Moser A. Series: practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: trustworthiness and publishing. Eur J Gen Pract 2018; 24 (01) 120-124
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 57 Ancker JS, Benda NC, Reddy M, Unertl KM, Veinot T. Guidance for publishing qualitative research in informatics. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2021; 28 (12) 2743-2748
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 58 Hennink M, Kaiser BN. Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: a systematic review of empirical tests. Soc Sci Med 2022; 292: 114523
    Search in Google Scholar