RSS-Feed abonnieren

DOI: 10.1055/a-2551-2056
The European Pediatric Surgical Audit: Improving Quality of Care in Rare Congenital Malformations
Funding The European Commission funded the EPSA|ERNICA Registry in the third and Fourth Health Programs (HP-PJ-219 and EU4H-2022-ERN-IBA). Additionally, the Dutch branch of EPSA is continuously supported by Zorgverzekeraars Nederland (ZN), a collaborative institute comprising 10 health care insurance companies in the Netherlands.S.E. acknowledges support from the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Great Ormond Street Hospital. Both funding sources of the EPSA|ERNICA registry, the European Commission and ZN, were not involved in the conception, drafting, and submission of this paper.

Abstract
Since 2019, the European Pediatric Surgical Audit (EPSA) has been the official registry of the European Reference Network for Inherited and Congenital Anomalies (ERNICA). The primary aim of this prospective patient registry is benchmarking (quality of) care for patients with rare congenital malformations throughout Europe. Data collected comprise baseline, treatment, and outcome variables, permitting calculation of disease-specific, hospital-level quality indicator results reflecting between-hospital variation. This practice and outcome variation is fed back as actionable information to clinicians on a web-based, real-time dashboard to help focus local and central improvement initiatives. Secondly, realizing joint research initiatives with quality improvement purposes through secondary data use will increase our knowledge of these rare conditions and optimize care. Currently, 27 hospitals in 15 European countries have connected to this unique, European-wide audit. Henceforward, the focus will be on the further expansion of hospitals and diseases, as EPSA aspires to become all-encompassing, including all European patients with congenital malformations.
Authors' Contributions
Conception and design: N.M.T., S.E., L.W.E.v.H., R.W.
Collection and assembly of data: all (collaborating) authors
Data curation and data analysis: N.M.T., D.R.
Data interpretation: all (collaborating) authors
Manuscript writing of original draft: N.M.T., D.R.
Manuscript reviewing and editing: all (collaborating) authors
Publikationsverlauf
Eingereicht: 15. Dezember 2023
Angenommen: 04. März 2025
Artikel online veröffentlicht:
15. April 2025
© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
References
- 1 Beck N, van Bommel AC, Eddes EH, van Leersum NJ, Tollenaar RA, Wouters MW. Dutch Clinical Auditing Group*. The Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing: Achieving Codman's Dream on a nationwide basis. Ann Surg 2020; 271 (04) 627-631
- 2 Jung B, Påhlman L, Johansson R, Nilsson E. Rectal cancer treatment and outcome in the elderly: an audit based on the Swedish Rectal Cancer Registry 1995-2004. BMC Cancer 2009; 9 (01) 68
- 3 Brucker SY, Wallwiener M, Kreienberg R. et al. Optimizing the quality of breast cancer care at certified german breast centers: a benchmarking analysis for 2003-2009 with a particular focus on the interdisciplinary specialty of radiation oncology. Strahlenther Onkol 2011; 187 (02) 89-99
- 4 Larsson S, Lawyer P, Garellick G, Lindahl B, Lundström M. Use of 13 disease registries in 5 countries demonstrates the potential to use outcome data to improve health care's value. Health Aff (Millwood) 2012; 31 (01) 220-227
- 5 Van Leersum NJ, Snijders HS, Henneman D. et al.; Dutch Surgical Colorectal Cancer Audit Group. The Dutch surgical colorectal audit. Eur J Surg Oncol 2013; 39 (10) 1063-1070 . Accessed March 11, 2025 at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23871573
- 6 Laronga C, Gray JE, Siegel EM. et al. Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care: improvements in breast cancer quality indicators during a 3-year interval. J Am Coll Surg 2014; 219 (04) 638-645.e1 . Accessed March 11, 2025 at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25086813
- 7 Elferink MAG, Wouters MWJM, Krijnen P. et al. Disparities in quality of care for colon cancer between hospitals in the Netherlands. Eur J Surg Oncol 2010; 36 (Suppl. 01) S64-S73 . Accessed March 11, 2025 at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20599339
- 8 Dreyer NA, Garner S. Registries for robust evidence. JAMA 2009; 302 (07) 790-791 . Accessed March 11, 2025 at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19690313
- 9 Porter ME, Teisberg EO. How physicians can change the future of health care. JAMA 2007; 297 (10) 1103-1111
- 10 van Heurn E, de Blaauw I, Heij H. et al. Quality measurement in neonatal surgical disorders: Development of clinical indicators. Eur J Pediatr Surg 2015; 25 (06) 526-531 . Accessed March 11, 2025 at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25643251
- 11 Wijnen MH, Hulscher JB. Centralization of pediatric surgical care in the Netherlands: Lessons learned. J Pediatr Surg 2022; 57 (02) 178-181
- 12 European Commission. Overview. 2022 . Accessed December 6, 2022 at: https://health.ec.europa.eu/european-reference-networks/overview_en
- 13 ERNICA. ERNICA. 2022 . Accessed December 6, 2022 at: https://ern-ernica.eu
- 14 European Reference Networks. ERNICA | EPSA registry. 2022 . Accessed June 6, 2022 at: https://ern-ernica.eu/registry/
- 15 EUROCAT | EU RD Platform. Prevalence charts and tables. 2022 . Accessed January 12, 2023 at: https://eu-rd-platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/eurocat/eurocat-data/prevalence_en
- 16 Best KE, Addor MC, Arriola L. et al. Hirschsprung's disease prevalence in Europe: a register based study. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2014; 100 (09) 695-702
- 17 Mant J. Process versus outcome indicators in the assessment of quality of health care. Int J Qual Health Care 2001; 13 (06) 475-480
- 18 MRDM. ERNICA Support - EPSA Documents. 2022 ; Available at: https://support.mrdm.com/en/downloads/documents/?org=ernica&set=epsa . Accessed on June 1st, 2023
- 19 Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ. et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data 2016; 3 (01) 160018
- 20 Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. 1966. Milbank Q 2005; 83 (04) 691-729 . Accessed March 11, 2025 at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00397.x
- 21 Bilimoria KY. Facilitating quality improvement: Pushing the pendulum back toward process measures. JAMA 2015; 314 (13) 1333-1334
- 22 Teunissen NM, Brendel J, Heurn LWEV, Ure B, Wijnen R, Eaton S. EPSA|ERNICA Registry Group. EA quality of care initiative. Selection of quality indicators to evaluate quality of care for patients with esophageal atresia using a Delphi method. Eur J Pediatr Surg 2024; Oct; 34 (05) 398-409
- 23 European Parliament C of the E union. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Rule). 2016 . Accessed January 10, 2023 at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016R0679&qid=1673355431568
- 24 Baker R, Camosso-Stefinovic J, Gillies C. et al. Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; 17: CD005470 . Accessed March 11, 2025 at: https://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD005470.pub2
- 25 Foy R, Eccles MP, Jamtvedt G, Young J, Grimshaw JM, Baker R. What do we know about how to do audit and feedback? Pitfalls in applying evidence from a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 2005; 5 (01) 50
- 26 McGlynn EA, Asch SM. Developing a clinical performance measure. Am J Prev Med 1998; 14 (3 Suppl): 14-21 . Accessed March 11, 2025 at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9566932
- 27 Spiegelhalter DJ. Funnel plots for comparing institutional performance. Stat Med 2005; 24 (08) 1185-1202
- 28 Wright J, Dugdale B, Hammond I. et al. Learning from death: a hospital mortality reduction programme. J R Soc Med 2006; 99 (06) 303-308
- 29 Rowell KS, Turrentine FE, Hutter MM, Khuri SF, Henderson WG. Use of national surgical quality improvement program data as a catalyst for quality improvement. J Am Coll Surg 2007; 204 (06) 1293-1300
- 30 Khuri SF, Henderson WG, Daley J. et al.; Principal Investigators of the Patient Safety in Surgery Study. Successful implementation of the Department of Veterans Affairs' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program in the private sector: the Patient Safety in Surgery study. Ann Surg 2008; 248 (02) 329-336
- 31 Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, O'Brien MA, Oxman AD. Does telling people what they have been doing change what they do? A systematic review of the effects of audit and feedback. Qual Saf Health Care 2006; 15 (06) 433-436
- 32 Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S. et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 2012 (06) CD000259
- 33 Stausberg J, Harkener S, Jenetzky E. et al. FAIR and Quality Assured Data – The Use Case of Trueness. In: Studies in Health Technology and informatics. Netherlands. IOS Press EBooks; 2022: 25-28 . Accessed March 11, 2025 at: https://ebooks.iospress.nl/doi/10.3233/SHTI210850
- 34 Jannot AS, Messiaen C, Khatim A, Pichon T, Sandrin A. BNDMR Infrastructure Team. The ongoing French BaMaRa-BNDMR cohort: implementation and deployment of a nationwide information system on rare disease. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2022; 29 (03) 553-558
- 35 Sfeir R, Michaud L, Sharma D, Richard F, Gottrand F. National Esophageal Atresia Register. Eur J Pediatr Surg 2015; 25 (06) 497-499
- 36 Morini F, Lally PA, Lally KP, Bagolan P. The Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Study Group Registry. Eur J Pediatr Surg 2015; 25 (06) 488-496