TY - JOUR
T1 - Addressing the challenges of cross-jurisdictional data linkage between a national clinical quality registry and government-held health data
AU - Andrew, Nadine
AU - Sundararajan, Vijaya
AU - Thrift, Amanda
AU - Kilkenny, Monique
AU - Katzenellenbogen, Judith
AU - Flack, Felicity
AU - Gattellari, Melina
AU - Boyd, James
AU - Anderson, Philip R.
AU - Grabsch, Brenda
AU - Lannin, Natasha
AU - Johnston, Trisha
AU - Cheng, Ying
AU - Cadilhac, Dominique
PY - 2016
Y1 - 2016
N2 - Objective: To describe the challenges of obtaining state and nationally held data for linkage to a non-government national clinical registry. Methods: We reviewed processes negotiated to achieve linkage between the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry (AuSCR), the National Death Index, and state held hospital data. Minutes from working group meetings, national workshop meetings, and documented communications with health department staff were reviewed and summarised. Results: Time from first application to receipt of data was more than two years for most state data-sets. Several challenges were unique to linkages involving identifiable data from a non-government clinical registry. Concerns about consent, the re-identification of data, duality of data custodian roles and data ownership were raised. Requirements involved the development of data flow methods, separating roles and multiple governance and ethics approvals. Approval to link death data presented the fewest barriers. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first time in Australia that person-level data from a clinical quality registry has been linked to hospital and mortality data across multiple Australian jurisdictions. Implications for Public Health: The administrative load of obtaining linked data makes projects such as this burdensome but not impossible. An improved national centralised strategy for data linkage in Australia is urgently needed.
AB - Objective: To describe the challenges of obtaining state and nationally held data for linkage to a non-government national clinical registry. Methods: We reviewed processes negotiated to achieve linkage between the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry (AuSCR), the National Death Index, and state held hospital data. Minutes from working group meetings, national workshop meetings, and documented communications with health department staff were reviewed and summarised. Results: Time from first application to receipt of data was more than two years for most state data-sets. Several challenges were unique to linkages involving identifiable data from a non-government clinical registry. Concerns about consent, the re-identification of data, duality of data custodian roles and data ownership were raised. Requirements involved the development of data flow methods, separating roles and multiple governance and ethics approvals. Approval to link death data presented the fewest barriers. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first time in Australia that person-level data from a clinical quality registry has been linked to hospital and mortality data across multiple Australian jurisdictions. Implications for Public Health: The administrative load of obtaining linked data makes projects such as this burdensome but not impossible. An improved national centralised strategy for data linkage in Australia is urgently needed.
KW - clinical registry
KW - data linkage
KW - health data
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85028246866&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/addressing-challenges-crossjurisdictional-data-linkage-between-national-clinical-quality-registry-go-1
U2 - 10.1111/1753-6405.12576
DO - 10.1111/1753-6405.12576
M3 - Article
SN - 1326-0200
VL - 40
SP - 436
EP - 442
JO - Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health
JF - Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health
IS - 5
ER -