Validation of a perfusion registry: methodological approach and initial findings

Abstract

Although regional and national registries exist to measure and report performance of cardiac surgical programs, few registries exist dedicated to the practice of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). We developed and implemented a cardiovascular perfusion registry (Perfusion Measures and outcomes [PERForm] Registry) within the structure of the Michigan Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons (MSTCVS) to improve our understanding of the practice of CPB. The PERForm Registry comprises data elements describing the practice of CPB. Fourteen medical centers within MSTCVS have voluntarily reported these data on procedures in which CPB is used. We validated the case count among procedures performed between January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011, and validated the values among 20 fields at three medical centers. We queried database managers at all 14 medical centers to identify the infrastructure that contributed to best overall data collection performance. We found that 98% of all records submitted to the PERForm and 95% of those submitted to the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) matched. We found quite favorable agreement in our audit of select fields (95.8%). Those centers with the most favorable performance in this validation study were more likely to use electronic data capture, have a perfusionist as the STS database manager, and have involvement of the STS database manager in the PERForm or STS databases. We successfully and accurately collected data concerning cardiovascular perfusion among 14 institutions in conjunction with the MSTCVS. Future efforts will focus on expanding data collection to all MSTCVS participating institutions as well as more broadly outside of Michigan.

Figure 1.

The percent of Perfusion Measures and outcomes (PERForm) and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) data forms that were matched across all participating institutions. Data from PERForm are noted in gray and data from the STS are noted in black.

Figure 2.

The comparison of the quality of matches across participating institutions. The quality of matches range from (best to more than >worst): complete/high, medium, low, manual.