A1 Refereed original research article in a scientific journal

Evolving quality standards for large-scale registries: the GARFIELD-AF experience




AuthorsKeith A.A. Fox, Bernard J. Gersh, Sory Traore, A. John Camm, Gloria Kayani, Anders Krogh, Shweta Shweta, Ajay K. Kakkar; for the GARFIELD-AF Investigators

PublisherOxford University Press

Publication year2017

JournalEuropean Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes

Journal name in sourceEuropean heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes

Journal acronymEur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes

Volume3

Issue2

First page 114

Last page122

Number of pages9

ISSN2058-1742

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1093/ehjqcco/qcw058


Abstract
Registries have the potential to capture treatment practices and outcomes in populations beyond the constraints of clinical trial settings. The value of data obtained depend critically upon robust quality standards (including source data verification [SDV] and training); features that are commonly absent from registries. This article outlines the quality standards developed for Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF).
GARFIELD-AF comprises ∼57 000 patients prospectively recruited over 6.5 years in 35 countries in five successive cohorts. The registry employs a combination of remote and onsite monitoring to ascertain completeness and accuracy of records and by design, SDV is performed on 20% of cases (i.e. ∼11 400 patients). Four performance measures for ranking sites according to data quality and other performance indicators were evaluated (including data quality for 13 quantifiable variables, late data locking, number of missing critical variables, and history of poor data quality from the previous monitoring phase). These criteria facilitated the identification of sites with potentially suboptimal data quality for onsite monitoring. During early phases of the registry, critical variables for data checking were also identified. SDV using these variables (partial SDV in 902 patients) showed similar concordance to SDV of all fields (110 patients): 94.4% vs. 93.1%, respectively. This standard formed the baseline against which ongoing quality improvements were assessed, facilitating corrective action on data quality issues. In consequence, concordance was improved in the next monitoring phase (95.6%; n = 1172).
The quality standards in GARFIELD-AF have the potential to inform a future 'reference' for registries.
Aims
Methods and Results
Conclusion



Last updated on 2024-26-11 at 21:19