Journal of registry management最新文献

Background: Since 1999, the Texas Birth Defects Registry (TBDR) has conducted active statewide surveillance of congenital anomalies in Texas. The TBDR has established quality assurance procedures and protocols. With the aim of supplementing these existing procedures with a new approach to proactively identify operational issues impacting data quality, we sought to implement a survey to identify procedural and operational challenges and develop strategies to mitigate the effects of practices (eg, changes in reporting practices at hospitals), external events (eg, pandemics), and other issues that may impact data quality.

Methods: An open-text, anonymous survey was developed and distributed to TBDR staff. The survey elicited responses from staff related to TBDR operations, partnerships, and communication with external health care facilities. In years 2 and 3, the survey was abbreviated from 9 to 3 questions.

Results: Completion rates were 45%, 74%, and 49% in years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Thematic analysis across all 3 years identified 7 primary themes: (1) data timeliness, (2) data quality improvements, (3) workflow optimization, (4) fundamental training needs, (5) specialized or technical training needs, (6) system challenges, and (7) internal communication and coordination.

Conclusions: This project provides a proof-of-concept that active surveillance birth defects registries can collect information on data quality-related staff experiences in a real-time, systematic manner and implement short- and long-term strategies to address data quality. The survey results prompted internal strategic planning, additional employee training initiatives, and data system enhancements. Additional work is needed to monitor the long-term improvements resulting from these strategic actions. The data quality survey results and implemented strategies may be useful to other surveillance programs.

Introduction: For many years, Ohio's hospitals experienced challenges related to state cancer reporting as they were unable to provide updated information after an abstract was initially submitted to the state central registry. For this reason, hospitals would hold their data to ensure they submitted the most complete and accurate data, especially for treatment. Ohio needed to find an automated method to receive updates for abstracts.

Methods: In 2020, the Ohio Cancer Incidence Surveillance System (OCISS) met with hospitals, hospital software vendors, and other state registries to investigate the option of collecting modified records (M-records). In 2021, OCISS completed an M-record pilot with a small subset of hospitals and began requiring M-records from all reporting hospitals in 2022. OCISS now has over a full years' experience processing M-record submissions.

Results: OCISS has found creative solutions to overcome challenges, and M-record processing has become one of the standard tasks completed by OCISS. While the overall registry volume increased due to M-record reporting, the workload of the central registry did not. Additionally, Ohio hospitals expressed appreciation for being able to provide updated information and no longer needing to hold on to their abstract until treatment is completed.

Discussion: M-record reporting has improved Ohio's registry operations. Ohio's cancer data is more complete and is reported more quickly. Implementing M-record reporting was challenging; however, as data timeliness becomes increasingly important, Ohio is well positioned to improve cancer reporting timeliness by leveraging M-record reporting.