Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30728028›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

"Struggling with practices" - a qualitative study of factors influencing the implementation of clinical quality registries for cardiac rehabilitation in England and Denmark.

Cecilie Lindström Egholm, Charlotte Helmark, Patrick Doherty, Per Nilsen, Ann-Dorthe Zwisler, Gitte Bunkenborg

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Pilot testing of the International Council of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation Registry.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Cecilie Lindström EgholmThe Danish Knowledge Centre for Rehabilitation and Palliative Care, University of Southern Denmark and Odense University Hospital, Southern Region of Denmark, Vestergade 17, 5800, Nyborg, Denmark. ance@regionsjaelland.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3527-0268
Charlotte HelmarkDepartment of Cardiology, Zealand University Hospital, 4000, Roskilde, Denmark.
Patrick DohertyThe National Audit of Cardiac Rehabilitation, Department of Health Sciences, Seebohm Rowntree Building, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Per NilsenDivision of Community Medicine, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Campus US, Hus 511-001, ingång 76, plan 13, 58183, Linköping, Sweden.
Ann-Dorthe ZwislerThe Danish Knowledge Centre for Rehabilitation and Palliative Care, University of Southern Denmark and Odense University Hospital, Southern Region of Denmark, Vestergade 17, 5800, Nyborg, Denmark.
Gitte BunkenborgDepartment of Anaestesiology, Holbaek University Hospital, Smedelundsgade 60, 4300, Holbaek, Region Zealand, Denmark.

Funding

Department of Medicine, Holbaek University Hospital NoneThe Danish Knowledge Centre for Rehabilitation and Palliative Care, University of Southern Denmark and Odense University Hospital, Southern Region of Denmark None
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of clinical quality registries as means for data driven improvement in healthcare seem promising. However, their use has been shown to be challenged by a number of aspects, and we suggest some may be related to poor implementation. There is a paucity of literature regarding barriers and facilitators for registry implementation, in particular aspects related to data collection and entry. We aimed to illuminate this by exploring how staff perceive the implementation process related to the registries within the field of cardiac rehabilitation in England and Denmark.

methodsA qualitative, interview-based study with staff involved in collecting and/or entering data into the two case registries (England N = 12, Denmark N = 12). Interviews were analysed using content analysis. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to guide interviews and the interpretation of results.

resultsThe analysis identified both similarities and differences within and between the studied registries, and resulted in clarification of staffs´ experiences in an overarching theme: ´Struggling with practices´ and five categories; the data entry process, registry quality, resources and management support, quality improvement and the wider healthcare context. Overall, implementation received little focused attention. There was a lack of active support from management, and staff may experience a struggle of fitting use of a registry into a busy and complex everyday practice.

conclusionThe study highlights factors that may be important to consider when planning and implementing a new clinical quality registry within the field of cardiac rehabilitation, and is possibly transferrable to other fields. The results may thus be useful for policy makers, administrators and managers within the field and beyond. Targeting barriers and utilizing knowledge of facilitating factors is vital in order to improve the process of registry implementation, hence helping to achieve the intended improvement of care processes and outcomes.

Indexed as

Administrative PersonnelCardiac RehabilitationData AccuracyData CollectionDelivery of Health CareDenmarkEnglandFemaleHealth ResourcesHumansMaleQualitative ResearchQuality ImprovementRegistriesCardiac rehabilitationClinical auditClinical quality registryData entryImplementationQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID30728028
PMCPMC6366013

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.