TMA Council on Practice Manage- ment Services, says her practice tried to use an available registry from the American College of Rheumatology, but that registry couldn’t collect data through her EHR. She also tried participating
through a different registry, but she says that system took data that per- tained to primary care, such as mea- sures pertaining to blood pressure and diabetes management, and didn’t have relevance to rheumatology. “The problem that we ran into is
when my staff tried to work with the electronic medical records system and tried to implement the registries, it took a lot of time and effort to find out the information,” said Dr. Clinton, also a member of the Texas Medicine Edi- torial Board. “There was a lot of time that transpired, and then we would later discover that it didn’t pertain to us or that we couldn’t implement it with our practice.” Dr. Gilmer and others in his spe-
cialty are awaiting the launch of the American Academy of Neurology’s (AAN’s) Axon registry. AAN scheduled Axon for launch late this year, accord- ing to Becky Schierman, AAN’s direc- tor of quality improvement. But Ms. Schierman says a sudden onslaught of physician interest in using Axon for meaningful use in 2016 means AAN might have to revisit that timetable. Moving up the timetable for Axon’s launch, though, would require AAN’s board to approve more financial sup- port for the project. She says the neurologists’ inquiries
about Axon had started around the beginning of the year and intensified as the March 1 deadline drew closer, throwing “a little wrench in our plans.” She says the Axon project was in the third of four pilot phases. “This kind of came out of the blue
for us like I think it came out of the blue for a lot of people,” she said. “I think we knew about the need to re- port to a registry, but I always kind of assumed it meant a public health sur- veillance registry. So we had been pro-
May 2016 TEXAS MEDICINE 53
SPECIALTY REGISTRIES ARE RARE
Nearly 85 percent of the American Medical Association’s specialty societies don’t have a clinical registry afiliation, according to an April 2015 study that later appeared in the Journal for Healthcare Quality. The report found “substantial opportunity” exists “to develop more specialty-specific clinical registries with publicly available data.” The study identified 153 clinical registries and found:
• 16.2 percent of the 117 AMA specialty societies had registry afiliation;
• 21.6 percent of the registries were affiliated with a specialty society;
• 77.1 percent of the registries had private funding, and 4.6 percent had both private and government funding;
• Three of the 153 registries, or 2 percent, mandated public reporting of hospital outcomes from all participating hospi- tals; and
• The registries had been functioning for an average of about eight years.
The researchers said specialty societies can “help inform clinical guidelines and improve patient outcomes by invest- ing in the participation of registries, creating better standards and guidelines for registries, and encouraging transparency of data.”
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76