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

• Main Authors: Antero Vanhala (Author), Anna-Rosa Lehto (Author), Anu Maksimow (Author), Paulus Torkki (Author), Sanna-Maria Kivivuori (Author)
• Format: Book
• Published: BMC, 2022-06-01T00:00:00Z.
• Subjects: article
• Online Access: Connect to this object online.
• Notes: 10.1186/s12913-022-08132-w; 1472-6963
• Keywords: Patient registry; Outcome assessment; Outcome measures; COMET; Comparative effectiveness research; Real-world data; Public aspects of medicine; RA1-1270
• Source: BMC Health Services Research, Vol 22, Iss 1, Pp 1-11 (2022)

Abstract Background The 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. Methods We 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. Results HUS 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. Conclusions The 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.