Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39468584›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2024

The use of outcome data from quality registries to learn and improve; a Dutch nationwide quantitative analysis in five disease areas.

Stacey R Slingerland, Lise A M Moers, Niki M Medendorp, Paul B van der Nat, Lineke Derks, Marijke J C Timmermans, Nicolette de Keizer, Marc Ten Dam, Geke Denissen, Dennis van Veghel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Advancing learning health care systems with best practice meetings: a mixed-methods study with insights from the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

10 authors.

Stacey R SlingerlandCatharina Heart Centre, Catharina hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Lise A M MoersNetherlands Heart Registration, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Niki M MedendorpNetherlands Heart Registration, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Paul B van der NatDepartment of Value Improvement, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands.
Lineke DerksNetherlands Heart Registration, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Marijke J C TimmermansNetherlands Heart Registration, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Nicolette de KeizerNational Intensive Care Evaluation, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Marc Ten DamNefrovision, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Geke DenissenDutch Arthroplasty Register, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands.
Dennis van VeghelNetherlands Heart Registration, Utrecht, the Netherlands. dennis.van.veghel@nhr.nl.

Funding

ZonMw project number 05160472110005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical quality registries (CQR) aid in measuring, collecting and monitoring outcome data but it is still unknown how these data are used by hospitals to improve the quality of care. This study assessed the current state of outcome-based quality improvement in the Netherlands in 2022 based on data from multiple disease areas and CQRs; cardiothoracic surgery (Netherlands Heart Registration [NHR]), cardiology (NHR), nephrology, (Nefrovision), intensive care (National Intensive Care Evaluation [NICE]), and orthopaedic surgery (Dutch Arthroplasty Register [LROI]). METHODS &

resultsThe Health Outcomes Management Evaluation (HOME) model was used to assess the current state of outcome-based quality improvement. A questionnaire with 36 questions was sent to healthcare departments of the six disease areas in participating hospitals within five quality registrations in the Netherlands. In total, 124 responses were received; 20 within cardiology, 12 within cardiothoracic surgery, 30 within nephrology, 35 within intensive care and 27 within orthopaedic surgery. Results showed outcome measures were actively used to improve the quality of care, several improvement initiatives were implemented, but outcomes were not always monitored regularly. Results differed between hospitals, but differences were limited between disease areas.

conclusionThe current state of outcome-based quality improvement in all five disease areas is that outcome measures were consequently employed and used on a frequent basis aiming to achieve quality improvement in healthcare. Results can be improved by structurally embedding the entire improvement cycle into the organisation.

Indexed as

Quality ImprovementRegistriesHumansNetherlandsOutcome Assessment, Health CareQuality Indicators, Health CareQuality of Health CareSurveys and QuestionnairesClinical quality registriesHealthcare data utilizationHealth outcomesOutcome monitoringQuality improvementValue-based healthcare

Identifiers

PMID39468584
PMCPMC11520663

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.