From national registries such as the AJRR, to private domestic registries like MOON, there are many orthopedic clinical data registries in the United States.
Clinical data registries prospectively gather data from a group of patients with a common diagnosis or treatment to learn how to better care for patients. In view of the increasing emphasis on demonstrating both the clinical effectiveness and the economic value of treatments, registries can be powerful and robust vehicles for improving the overall delivery of care, practice improvement, and physician reimbursement. Or as we like to say at CODE “collecting outcome data is for the good of patients, the good of the practice, and the good of the public’.
Historically, the main purpose of orthopedic data registries was for surveillance of implants as a measure of patient safety. Recent health policy reforms, however, have lead to reexamination of the roles of orthopedic registries and the type of data being collected. The global emphasis is to expand data collection beyond just implant attributes and survival (level I data), to include post-operative complications and patient reported outcomes (level II and III data).
While most orthopedic surgeons recognize the benefit of participating in data registries, it can be logistically and financially challenging to do it. Whether you are a hospital, group practice, or independent practitioner, careful consideration as to which registry to participate in and the value it renders is warranted.