Bariatric Surgery Registries: Can They Contribute to Improved Outcomes?

Abstract

Clinical registries systematically collect prospective information about patients with a particular medical condition, who have had a medical device implanted or who have undergone a particular procedure. When these variables are collected with pre-defined quality indices included, the benched-marked risk-adjusted data may be a valuable resource for providing feedback on outcomes, including performance, to practitioners, patients, health services and device manufacturers.There are examples of feedback from clinical registries positively influencing patient care. The Australian National Joint Registry identified a poorly performing hip prosthesis which was ultimately withdrawn from the market. Feedback from the Victorian State Prostate Cancer Registry has contributed to improved patient care and fewer positive surgical margins noted over a 5-year reporting period. There are several national and regional registries collecting information on patients undergoing bariatric surgery, however, few currently focus on quality outcome measures. Whilst, current bariatric registries have contributed to improved understanding of some of the clinical situations relating to bariatric surgery, as well as developing composite risk scores and measuring quality cultures, they have not as yet demonstrably directly influenced patient care. This may reflect the fact that many of the registries do not hold data that are mature enough for proper analysis, but may also reflect problems with systematic data collection, bias from missing results and lack of appropriate funding. It will be important in the future that bariatric surgery registries actively seek to measure and validate their contribution to patient outcomes.