Spinal Cord Injury Clinical Registries: Improving Care across the SCI Care Continuum by Identifying Knowledge Gaps

• Published in: Journal of neurotrauma Vol. 34; no. 20; p. 2924
• Main Authors: Dvorak, Marcel F, Cheng, Christiana L, Fallah, Nader, Santos, Argelio, Atkins, Derek, Humphreys, Suzanne, Rivers, Carly S, White, Barry A B, Ho, Chester, Ahn, Henry, Kwon, Brian K, Christie, Sean, Noonan, Vanessa K
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 15-10-2017
• Subjects: Continuity of Patient Care - standards; Humans; Neurology - standards; Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - standards; Registries; Spinal Cord Injuries; spinal cord injury; data quality; clinical registry; knowledge gaps; healthcare system
• ISSN: 1557-9042
• DOI: 10.1089/neu.2016.4937

Timely access and ongoing delivery of care and therapeutic interventions is needed to maximize recovery and function after traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI). To ensure these decisions are evidence-based, access to consistent, reliable, and valid sources of clinical data is required. The Access to Care and Timing Model used data from the Rick Hansen SCI Registry (RHSCIR) to generate a simulation of healthcare delivery for persons after tSCI and to test scenarios aimed at improving outcomes and reducing the economic burden of SCI. Through model development, we identified knowledge gaps and challenges in the literature and current health outcomes data collection throughout the continuum of SCI care. The objectives of this article were to describe these gaps and to provide recommendations for bridging them. Accurate information on injury severity after tSCI was hindered by difficulties in conducting neurological assessments and classifications of SCI (e.g., timing), variations in reporting, and the lack of a validated SCI-specific measure of associated injuries. There was also limited availability of reliable data on patient factors such as multi-morbidity and patient-reported measures. Knowledge gaps related to structures (e.g., protocols) and processes (e.g., costs) at each phase of care have prevented comprehensive evaluation of system performance. Addressing these knowledge gaps will enhance comparative and cost-effectiveness evaluations to inform decision-making and standards of care. Recommendations to do so were: standardize data element collection and facilitate database linkages, validate and adopt more outcome measures for SCI, and increase opportunities for collaborations with stakeholders from diverse backgrounds.