Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35729629›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

Classifying outcomes in secondary and tertiary care clinical quality registries-an organizational case study with the COMET taxonomy.

Antero Vanhala, Anna-Rosa Lehto, Anu Maksimow, Paulus Torkki, Sanna-Maria Kivivuori

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

5 authors.

Antero VanhalaDepartment of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 20, 00014, Helsinki, Finland. antero.vanhala@helsinki.fi.
Anna-Rosa LehtoDepartment of Information Service and Management, Aalto University School of Business, Espoo, Finland.
Anu MaksimowHUS Helsinki University Hospital, P.O. Box 100, 00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland.
Paulus TorkkiDepartment of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 20, 00014, Helsinki, Finland.
Sanna-Maria KivivuoriHUS Helsinki University Hospital, P.O. Box 100, 00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe choice of what patient outcomes are included in clinical quality registries is crucial for comparable and relevant data collection. Ideally, a uniform outcome framework could be used to classify the outcomes included in registries, steer the development of outcome measurement, and ultimately enable better patient care through benchmarking and registry research. The aim of this study was to compare clinical quality registry outcomes against the COMET taxonomy to assess its suitability in the registry context.

methodsWe conducted an organizational case study that included outcomes from 63 somatic clinical quality registries in use at HUS Helsinki University Hospital, Finland. Outcomes were extracted and classified according to the COMET taxonomy and the suitability of the taxonomy was assessed.

resultsHUS clinical quality registries showed great variation in outcome domains and in number of measures. Physiological outcomes were present in 98%, resource use in all, and functioning domains in 62% of the registries. Patient-reported outcome measures were found in 48% of the registries.

conclusionsThe COMET taxonomy was found to be mostly suitable for classifying the choice of outcomes in clinical quality registries, but improvements are suggested. HUS Helsinki University Hospital clinical quality registries exist at different maturity levels, showing room for improvement in life impact outcomes and in outcome prioritization. This article offers an example of classifying the choice of outcomes included in clinical quality registries and a comparison point for other registry evaluators.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresHumansPatient CareRegistriesTertiary Health CareCOMETComparative effectiveness researchOutcome assessmentOutcome measuresPatient registryReal-world data

Identifiers

PMID35729629
PMCPMC9215071

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.