Reliability of NNAP's RoP screening data
The letter by Neil Finer and others raises important questions around quality and completeness of data used for national benchmarking.
The authors criticise the quality of NNAP data used in the published 2012 report. They show in one unit where there were inaccuracies due to data not being entered into the Badger system. They give examples of how the Badger system possibly contributed to the problem by not alerting users adequately to missing data.
The NNAP project gives the neonatal community in UK a unique opportunity to analyse whole population data. I hope these reported problems with NNAP data are not seen as a reason to stop national audit and benchmarking but as a reminder of the need to take seriously the collection of better data. It is inevitably an iterative process and NNAP is continuing to evolve and improve. The neonatal community must continue to support the very important role of a national benchmarking project.
The requirements of NNAP are published and units should have in place systems to ensure timely collection of important data.
Clevermed is committed to working with users, and with NNAP, to assist in the collection of data that are complete and of good quality, as well ensuring timely and correct downloads.
Since 2012 the 'idiosyncrasies' referred to in the letter have already been addressed within the new version of the software (BadgerNet) and further improvements are due for release. There are also many more lists, dashboards and reports that help users check the quality and completeness of their data. I believe that the quality and completeness of ROP screening data within the system has already improved significantly since 2012.
More than 80% of units have changed (at no charge) to the new version of the software and Clevermed aims to complete the migration by the end of 2014 when the older Badger 3 will no longer be supported.
Conflict of Interest:
Dr Andrew Lyon works with, and receives payment from, Clevermed Ltd.