Audit on the Hong Kong Renal Registry data accuracy: a single center perspective

• Published in: Hong Kong journal of nephrology Vol. 4; no. 2; pp. 95 - 100
• Main Authors: TANG, Anthony Wing-Chung, TANG, Sydney, LAM, Woon-Or, CHENG, Yuk-Yee, O, Tak-Keung, HUI, Yun-Ho, HO, Yiu-Wing
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier B.V 2002
• Subjects: Data collection; Medical audit; Registries; Renal dialysis; Renal replacement therapy; Data collection; Registries; Renal dialysis; Medical audit; Renal replacement therapy
• ISSN: 1561-5413; 1876-4371
• DOI: 10.1016/S1561-5413(09)60087-9

The Hong Kong Renal Registry is a direct online computerized registry, and one of its functions is to serve as a clinical database for individual renal centers. Currently, we rely on clinical staff for data entry in our center. Integrity and accuracy of the data are important for analyzing patients on renal replacement therapy. The objective of this study was to perform an audit program on the accuracy of the renal registry data on existing renal replacement therapy patients. A total of 376 patients (268 peritoneal dialysis, 50 hemodialysis, and 58 post-transplanted patients) were on the renal replacement therapy registry of United Christian Hospital as of June 30, 2001. Approximately 10% of the patients (total 36 patients: 25 peritoneal dialysis, 5 hemodialysis, and 6 posttransplanted patients) were randomly selected for audit. We wanted to identify whether the data were being entered accurately, inaccurately, or not entered. Subgroup analyses on different registry categories and comparison between essential and nonessential data were performed. We examined 3287 data items (2153 essential and 1134 nonessential). The overall rate of accurate data entry was 81%, the rate of inaccurate data entry was 4%, and missed data entry was 15%. The most frequent accurately entered data were “hemodialysis treatment” (96%) and “conservative treatment” (100%) under the category of “treatment/outcome”; the most frequent inaccurately entered data were “access complication” (17%) under the category of “complication.” The most frequently missing essential data were “exit site infection” (40%) and “peritonitis” under the category of “complication.” This audit program identifies the areas for improvement in data entry in the renal registry.