Background: A clinical quality registry (CQR) is a structured database that systematically collects data to monitor clinical quality and improve healthcare outcomes. The aims of CQRs are to improve treatment plans, assist in decision-making, increase healthcare value, enhance care quality, and reduce healthcare costs by providing feedback to healthcare providers. Feedback to clinicians is used as a quality improvement tool. It provides data to clinicians about their performance, which may contribute to improvement in healthcare outcomes. To the best of our knowledge, previous research on CQRs has primarily focused on factors affecting their use and their impact on healthcare outcomes. In this study, a scoping review is conducted to understand the barriers to and facilitators of using feedback systems from clinical quality registries in acute healthcare settings.
Methods: For this review, Arksey and O'Malley's framework for scoping reviews will be applied. The following electronic databases (MEDLINE via Ovid, CINAHL, and Scopus) and grey literature (Google Scholar) will be systematically searched for qualitative and mixed-method studies (only including qualitative findings) published after 2000 in the English language. Two reviewers will independently screen the articles and extract the data which, subsequently, will be mapped against the COM-B model.
Discussion: This review is conducted with the aim of providing valuable insights into the factors that influence the utilisation of feedback from Clinical Quality Registries by healthcare providers, which, in the context of quality improvement, may have significant implications for clinical research, registry science, health policy, and clinical practice.
Scoping Review Registration: This protocol has been registered prospectively with the Open Science Framework (OSF) ( https://osf.io/fhm4n/ ).
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11616109 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02693-z | DOI Listing |
Background: In Alzheimer's Disease trials, the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) are commonly utilized as inclusionary criteria at screening. These measures, however, do not always reaffirm inclusionary status at baseline. Score changes between screening and baseline visits may imply potential score inflation at screening leading to inappropriate participant enrollment.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBackground: Clinical trial sponsors rely on research sites to identify and enroll appropriate study participants and to correctly and reliably assess symptom severity and function over the course of the trial. Low-recruiting sites represent a large financial and operational burden and may negatively impact trial success either by selecting inappropriate participants and/or high prevalence of data quality issues. We previously reported that >60% of sites in schizophrenia clinical trials recruited ≤5 participants.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFAlzheimers Dement
December 2024
Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Background: Clinical trials should strive to yield results that are clinically meaningful rather than solely relying on statistical significance. However, the determination of clinical meaningfulness of dementia clinical trials lacks standardization and varies based on the trial's nature. To tackle this issue, a proposed approach involves assessing the time saved before reaching a specific threshold in cognitive status.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFIt is well recognised that Alzheimer's disease and related dementia disorders (ADRD) are associated with very high societal costs. The total global costs of dementia have been estimated to over 1.3 trillion US$ annually (Wimo, Seeher et al.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFAlzheimers Dement
December 2024
Amsterdam Neuroscience, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Background: The first disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) for Alzheimer's disease (AD) have been approved in the USA, marking profound changes in AD-diagnosis and treatment. This will bring new challenges in terms of clinician-patient communication. We aimed to collect the perspectives of memory clinic professionals regarding the most important topics to address and what (tools) would support professionals and their patients and care partners to engage in a meaningful conversation on whether (or not) to initiate treatment.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!