|Art der Begutachtung:||Peer review (Abstract)|
|Titel:||State of the art of medical registers in Switzerland 2015 : more questions than answers|
|Erschienen in:||Value in health|
|Tagungsband:||ISPOR 18th Annual European Congress research abstracts|
|Angaben zur Konferenz:||ISPOR 18th Annual European Congress, MIlan, Italy, 7-11 November 2015|
|Verlag / Hrsg. Institution:||Elsevier|
|Fachgebiet (DDC):||362: Gesundheits- und Sozialdienste|
|Zusammenfassung:||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.|
|Volltext Version:||Publizierte Version|
|Lizenz (gemäss Verlagsvertrag):||Lizenz gemäss Verlagsvertrag|
|Departement:||School of Management and Law|
|Organisationseinheit:||Winterthurer Institut für Gesundheitsökonomie (WIG)|
|Enthalten in den Sammlungen:||Publikationen School of Management and Law|
Dateien zu dieser Ressource:
Es gibt keine Dateien zu dieser Ressource.
Alle Ressourcen in diesem Repository sind urheberrechtlich geschützt, soweit nicht anderweitig angezeigt.