Literature DB >> 25220064

Achieving minimum caseload requirements: an analysis of hospital quality control reports from 2004-2010.

Werner de Cruppé1, Marc Malik, Max Geraedts.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Legally mandated minimum hospital caseload requirements for certain invasive procedures, including pancreatectomy, esophagectomy, and some types of organ transplantation, have been in effect in Germany since 2004. The goal of such requirements is to improve patient care by ensuring that patients undergo certain procedures only in hospitals that have met the corresponding minimum caseload requirement. We used the case numbers published in legally mandated hospital quality control reports to determine whether the hospitals actually met the stipulated requirements.
METHOD: We performed a secondary analysis of data supplied by hospitals in their quality control reports for the years 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010 with respect to six procedures that have a minimum caseload requirement: complex interventions on the esophagus and pancreas, total knee replacement, and hepatic, renal, and stem-cell transplantation.
RESULTS: The total case numbers for these six different procedures rose from 22 064 (0.1% of all procedures) in 2004 to 170 801 (0.9% of all procedures) in 2010. From 2006 onward, procedures to which minimum caseload requirements apply have been carried out in half of all hospitals studied. These procedures account for 0.9% of all inpatient cases in Germany. The percentage of hospitals that continue to perform certain procedures despite not having met the minimum caseload requirement ranged from 5% to 45%, depending on the type of procedure, and the percentage of cases carried out in such hospitals ranged from 1% to 15%. These values remained nearly constant for each of the six minimum caseload requirements over the 4 reporting years for which data were examined.
CONCLUSION: The establishment of minimum caseload requirements in Germany in 2004 did not lessen the number of cases performed in violation of these requirements over the period 2004 to 2010.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25220064      PMCID: PMC4165182          DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2014.0549

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int        ISSN: 1866-0452            Impact factor:   5.594


  35 in total

1.  Accuracy of risk-adjusted mortality rate as a measure of hospital quality of care.

Authors:  J W Thomas; T P Hofer
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 2.  Threshold volumes associated with higher survival in health care: a systematic review.

Authors:  Afschin Gandjour; Angelika Bannenberg; Karl W Lauterbach
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 3.  The volume-outcome relationship: don't believe everything you see.

Authors:  Caprice K Christian; Michael L Gustafson; Rebecca A Betensky; Jennifer Daley; Michael J Zinner
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 4.  A systematic review of the impact of volume of surgery and specialization on patient outcome.

Authors:  M M Chowdhury; H Dagash; A Pierro
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 6.939

5.  [Hospitals failing minimum volumes in 2004: reasons and consequences].

Authors:  M Geraedts; C Kühnen; W de Cruppé; K Blum; C Ohmann
Journal:  Gesundheitswesen       Date:  2008-02

6.  Flexible regression models are useful tools to calculate and assess threshold values in the context of minimum provider volumes.

Authors:  Ulrich Grouven; Helmut Küchenhoff; Peter Schräder; Ralf Bender
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2008-06-11       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 7.  A review of hospital characteristics associated with improved performance.

Authors:  Caroline A Brand; Anna L Barker; Renata T Morello; Michael R Vitale; Sue M Evans; Ian A Scott; Johannes U Stoelwinder; Peter A Cameron
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  2012-08-07       Impact factor: 2.038

8.  A decade of mortality reductions in major oncologic surgery: the impact of centralization and quality improvement.

Authors:  Peter A Learn; Peter B Bach
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 9.  Quality-of-care indicators for oesophageal cancer surgery: A review.

Authors:  E F W Courrech Staal; M W J M Wouters; H Boot; R A E M Tollenaar; J W van Sandick
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  2010-09-16       Impact factor: 4.424

Review 10.  Effect of surgeon training, specialization, and experience on outcomes for cancer surgery: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Karl Y Bilimoria; Joseph D Phillips; Colin E Rock; Amanda Hayman; Jay B Prystowsky; David J Bentrem
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2009-05-15       Impact factor: 5.344

View more
  9 in total

1.  [Minimum caseload requirements in urologic oncology: not without evidence from health services research].

Authors:  J Huber; C Groeben; M P Wirth; F Hoffmann
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 0.639

2.  [Does hospital volume correlate with surgical process time? : Retrospective analysis of the five most common procedures for visceral surgery, trauma and orthopedic surgery and gynecology/obstetrics from the benchmarking program of the Berufsverband Deutscher Anästhesisten (BDA), Berufsverband Deutscher Chirurgen (BDC) and Verband für OP-Management (VOPM)].

Authors:  O Karaca; M Bauer; C Taube; T Auhuber; M Schuster
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2019-03-20       Impact factor: 1.041

3.  Achieving minimum caseload requirements--an analysis of hospital discharge data from 2005-2011.

Authors:  Dirk Peschke; Ulrike Nimptsch; Thomas Mansky
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2014-08-18       Impact factor: 5.594

4.  Has the minimum caseload requirement failed? Strategic planning in the hospital sector requires input from elected political representatives.

Authors:  Karl-Walter Jauch
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2014-08-18       Impact factor: 5.594

5.  Minimum volume standards in German hospitals: do they get along with procedure centralization? A retrospective longitudinal data analysis.

Authors:  Werner de Cruppé; Marc Malik; Max Geraedts
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2015-07-22       Impact factor: 2.655

6.  Hospital volume-outcome relationship in total knee arthroplasty: protocol for a systematic review and non-linear dose-response meta-analysis.

Authors:  Tanja Rombey; Käthe Goossen; Jessica Breuing; Tim Mathes; Simone Hess; Rene Burchard; Dawid Pieper
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2020-02-20

7.  Impact of suspending minimum volume requirements for knee arthroplasty on hospitals in Germany: an uncontrolled before-after study.

Authors:  Werner de Cruppé; Annette Ortwein; Rike Antje Kraska; Max Geraedts
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2020-12-01       Impact factor: 2.655

8.  Defining minimum volume thresholds to increase quality of care: a new patient-oriented approach using mixed integer programming.

Authors:  Justus F A Vogel; Max Barkhausen; Christoph M Pross; Alexander Geissler
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2022-01-28

9.  Perspective of potential patients on the hospital volume-outcome relationship and the minimum volume threshold for total knee arthroplasty: a qualitative focus group and interview study.

Authors:  Charlotte M Kugler; Karina K De Santis; Tanja Rombey; Kaethe Goossen; Jessica Breuing; Nadja Könsgen; Tim Mathes; Simone Hess; René Burchard; Dawid Pieper
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2021-07-02       Impact factor: 2.655

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.