4.6 Article

Protocol and pilot data for establishing the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STROKE
Volume 5, Issue 3, Pages 217-226

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2010.00430.x

Keywords

health outcome; quality assessment; registries; stroke

Funding

  1. ACSQHC [018/0809]
  2. Allergan Australia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Disease registries assist with clinical practice improvement. The Australian Stroke Clinical Registry aims to provide national, prospective, systematic data on processes and outcomes for stroke. We describe the methods of establishment and initial experience of operation. Methods Australian Stroke Clinical Registry conforms to new national operating principles and technical standards for clinical quality registers. Features include: online data capture from acute public and private hospital sites; opt-out consent; expert consensus agreed core minimum dataset with standard definitions; outcomes assessed at 3 months poststroke; formal governance oversight; and formative evaluations for improvements. Results Qualitative feedback from sites indicates that the web-tool is simple to use and the user manuals, data dictionary, and training are appropriate. However, sites desire automated data-entry methods for routine demography variables and the opt-out consent protocol has sometimes been problematic. Data from 204 patients (median age 71 years, 54% males, 60% Australian) were collected from four pilot hospitals from June to October 2009 (mean, 50 cases per month) including ischaemic stroke (in 72%), intracerebral haemorrhage (16%), transient ischaemic attack (9%), and undetermined (3%), with only one case opting out. Conclusion Australian Stroke Clinical Registry has been well established, but further refinements and broad roll-out are required before realising its potential of improving patient care through clinician feedback and allowance of local, national, and international comparative data.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available