Maria P Bautista1, Guillermo A Bonilla2, Klaus W Mieth2, Adolfo M Llinás2, Fernanda Rodríguez1, Laura L Cárdenas3. 1. Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Hospital Universitario Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá, Bogotá D.C., Colombia. 2. Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Hospital Universitario Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá, School of Medicine, Universidad de Los Andes, School of Medicine, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá D.C., Colombia. 3. Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Hospital Universitario Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá, School of Medicine, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá D.C., Colombia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Arthroplasty registries are a relevant source of information for research and quality improvement in patient care and its value depends on the quality of the recorded data. The purpose of this study is to describe a model of validation and present the findings of validation of an Institutional Arthroplasty Registry (IAR). METHODS: Information from 209 primary arthroplasties and revision surgeries of the hip, knee, and shoulder recorded in the IAR between March and September 2015 were analyzed in the following domains. Adherence is defined as the proportion of patients included in the registry, completeness is defined as the proportion of data effectively recorded, and accuracy is defined as the proportion of data consistent with medical records. A random sample of 53 patients (25.4%) was selected to assess the latest 2 domains. A direct comparison between the registry's database and medical records was performed. RESULTS: In total, 324 variables containing information on demographic data, surgical procedure, clinical outcomes, and key performance indicators were analyzed. Two hundred nine of 212 patients who underwent surgery during the study period were included in the registry, accounting for an adherence of 98.6%. Completeness was 91.7% and accuracy was 85.8%. Most errors were found in the preoperative range of motion and timely administration of prophylactic antibiotics and thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSION: This model provides useful information regarding the quality of the recorded data since it identified deficient areas within the IAR. We recommend that institutional arthroplasty registries be constantly monitored for data quality before using their information for research or quality improvement purposes.
BACKGROUND: Arthroplasty registries are a relevant source of information for research and quality improvement in patient care and its value depends on the quality of the recorded data. The purpose of this study is to describe a model of validation and present the findings of validation of an Institutional Arthroplasty Registry (IAR). METHODS: Information from 209 primary arthroplasties and revision surgeries of the hip, knee, and shoulder recorded in the IAR between March and September 2015 were analyzed in the following domains. Adherence is defined as the proportion of patients included in the registry, completeness is defined as the proportion of data effectively recorded, and accuracy is defined as the proportion of data consistent with medical records. A random sample of 53 patients (25.4%) was selected to assess the latest 2 domains. A direct comparison between the registry's database and medical records was performed. RESULTS: In total, 324 variables containing information on demographic data, surgical procedure, clinical outcomes, and key performance indicators were analyzed. Two hundred nine of 212 patients who underwent surgery during the study period were included in the registry, accounting for an adherence of 98.6%. Completeness was 91.7% and accuracy was 85.8%. Most errors were found in the preoperative range of motion and timely administration of prophylactic antibiotics and thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSION: This model provides useful information regarding the quality of the recorded data since it identified deficient areas within the IAR. We recommend that institutional arthroplasty registries be constantly monitored for data quality before using their information for research or quality improvement purposes.