Title: State of the art of medical registers in Switzerland 2015 : more questions than answers
Authors : Twerenbold, Claudia
Gratwohl, A
Eichler, Klaus
Hostettler, S
Brügger, Urs
et. al : No
Published in : Value in health
Proceedings: ISPOR 18th Annual European Congress research abstracts
Volume(Issue) : 18
Issue : 7
Conference details: ISPOR 18th Annual European Congress, Milan, Italy, 7 - 11 November 2015
Publisher / Ed. Institution : Elsevier
Issue Date: 2015
License (according to publishing contract) : Licence according to publishing contract
Type of review: Peer review (abstract)
Language : English
Subject (DDC) : 362: Health and social services
Abstract: Objectives: Medical registers are recognized as an important tool in health services research (HSR) and health technology assessment (HTA). However, optimal use remains to be defined. In 2011, the Swiss Medical Association (FMH) launched a project to systematically list all medical registers in Switzerland to improve transparency and networking. This interim analysis shows the current state, potential weaknesses and needs for action. Methods: This prospective study analyzed function, classification (epidemiological/clinical) and current status of all Swiss medical registers listed on the FMH database. We integrated purpose and properties by a self-developed typology. Based on our findings, we describe current state and suggest new directions. Results: 33 registers were classified as clinical, 36 as epidemiological, and 4 as “other”. 66 (90%) were active. The purpose of the registers (epidemiological surveillance, quality management, prioritization, HTA) was often not specified 28 registers were run by a university (14 clinical, 12 epidemiological, 2 ”other”),35 (10/23/2) by a public institution, 10 (9/1/0) by a commercial company. Clinical registers have the highest probability to be run by a commercial company (RR= 2.36;[CI: 1.62-3.44]. 37 registers were national (18/ 18/1), 60 national and international (82%;33/24/3) and 13 local (0/12/1). 30 registers (41%) were mandatory with no significant differences between the different types. 4 registers were linked to HTA decision making. There was an overlap in 4 trauma registers and we identified registers that are not listed in the FMH database. Only 6 clinical registers have an auditing system in place (9%; 95%-CI 2-14;), none a standardized quality management system. Conclusions: There is documented goodwill to conduct medical registers in Switzerland, and to make them available to the medical community, to HTA and HSR.There appears a need for a quality management system and supervision at a higher level to safeguard quality standards and transparency.
Departement: School of Management and Law
Organisational Unit: Winterthur Institute of Health Economics (WIG)
Publication type: Conference other
DOI : 10.1016/j.jval.2015.09.1866
ISSN: 1098-3015
1524-4733
URI: https://digitalcollection.zhaw.ch/handle/11475/17945
Appears in Collections:Publikationen School of Management and Law

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.