Literature DB >> 25220065

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

Dirk Peschke1, Ulrike Nimptsch, Thomas Mansky.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The German Federal Joint Committee (the highest decision-making body of physicians and health insurance funds in Germany) has established minimum caseload requirements with the goal of improving patient care. Such requirements have been in place for five types of surgical procedure since 2004 and were introduced for total knee endoprosthesis surgery in 2006 and for the care of low-birth-weight neonates (weighing less than 1250 g) in 2010.
METHOD: We analyzed data from German nationwide DRG statistics (DRG = diagnosis-related groups) for the years 2005-2011. The procedures that were performed were identified on the basis of their operation and procedure codes, and the low-birth-weight neonates on the basis of their birth weight and age. The treating facilities were distinguished from one another by their institutional identifying numbers, which were contained in the DRG database.
RESULTS: In 2011, there were 172 838 hospitalizations to which minimum caseload requirements were applicable. 4.5% of these took place in institutions that did not meet the minimum requirement for the procedure in question. The percentage of institutions that did not meet the minimum caseload requirement for complex pancreatic surgery fell significantly from 64.6% in 2006 to 48.7% in 2011, and the percentage of pancreatic surgery cases treated in such institutions fell over the same period from 19.0% to 11.4%. A significant reduction in the number of institutions treating low-birth-weight neonates was already evident before minimum caseload requirements were introduced. For all other types of procedure subject to minimum caseload requirements, there has been no significant change either in the percentage of institutions meeting the requirements or in the percentage of cases treated in such institutions.
CONCLUSION: After taking account of the potential bias due to the identification of institutions by their institutional identifying numbers, we found no discernible effect of minimum caseload requirements on care structures over the seven-year period of observation, with the possible exception of a mild effect on pancreatic procedures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25220065      PMCID: PMC4165183          DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2014.0556

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


  12 in total

1.  Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States.

Authors:  John D Birkmeyer; Andrea E Siewers; Emily V A Finlayson; Therese A Stukel; F Lee Lucas; Ida Batista; H Gilbert Welch; David E Wennberg
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-04-11       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 2.  The volume-outcome relation in the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Michel W J M Wouters; Gea A Gooiker; Johanna W van Sandick; Rob A E M Tollenaar
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-08-25       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 3.  Hospital volume and mortality after pancreatic resection: a systematic review and an evaluation of intervention in the Netherlands.

Authors:  N Tjarda van Heek; Koert F D Kuhlmann; Rob J Scholten; Steve M M de Castro; Olivier R C Busch; Thomas M van Gulik; Huug Obertop; Dirk J Gouma
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Implementation and effects of Germany's minimum volume regulations: results of the accompanying research.

Authors:  Max Geraedts; Werner de Cruppé; Karl Blum; Christian Ohmann
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2008-12-22       Impact factor: 5.594

5.  Very low birth weight hospital volume and mortality: an instrumental variables approach.

Authors:  George L Wehby; Fred Ullrich; Yang Xie
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 6.  Volume-outcome relationship in surgery for esophageal malignancy: systematic review and meta-analysis 2000-2011.

Authors:  Sheraz R Markar; Alan Karthikesalingam; Sri Thrumurthy; Donald E Low
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2011-11-17       Impact factor: 3.452

7.  Association between hospital and surgeon procedure volume and the outcomes of total knee replacement.

Authors:  Jeffrey N Katz; Jane Barrett; Nizar N Mahomed; John A Baron; R John Wright; Elena Losina
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Primary total knee arthroplasty in California 1991 to 2001: does hospital volume affect outcomes?

Authors:  Nelson F Soohoo; David S Zingmond; Jay R Lieberman; Clifford Y Ko
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 4.757

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

Authors:  Werner de Cruppé; Marc Malik; Max Geraedts
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2014-08-18       Impact factor: 5.594

10.  [Annual patient volume and survival of very low birth weight infants (VLBWs) in Germany--a nationwide analysis based on administrative data].

Authors:  G Heller; C Günster; B Misselwitz; A Feller; S Schmidt
Journal:  Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 0.685

View more
  12 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.  [Economic aspects of oncological esophageal surgery : Centralization is essential].

Authors:  N von Dercks; I Gockel; M Mehdorn; D Lorenz
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 0.955

Review 3.  Minimum Volume Standards in Surgery - Are We There Yet?

Authors:  Hartwig Bauer; Kim C Honselmann
Journal:  Visc Med       Date:  2017-04-13

Review 4.  Is There a Rationale for Structural Quality Assurance in Esophageal Surgery?

Authors:  Torben Glatz; Jens Höppner
Journal:  Visc Med       Date:  2017-03-24

5.  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

Review 6.  Influence of Hospital Volume Effects and Minimum Caseload Requirements on Quality of Care in Pancreatic Surgery in Germany.

Authors:  Christian Krautz; Axel Denz; Georg F Weber; Robert Grützmann
Journal:  Visc Med       Date:  2017-03-30

7.  Robots drive the German radical prostatectomy market: a total population analysis from 2006 to 2013.

Authors:  C Groeben; R Koch; M Baunacke; M P Wirth; J Huber
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2016-08-23       Impact factor: 5.554

8.  In-hospital mortality and failure to rescue following hepatobiliary surgery in Germany - a nationwide analysis.

Authors:  Christian Krautz; Christine Gall; Olaf Gefeller; Ulrike Nimptsch; Thomas Mansky; Maximilian Brunner; Georg F Weber; Robert Grützmann; Stephan Kersting
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2020-07-29       Impact factor: 2.102

9.  Relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and outcomes in joint arthroplasty: protocol for a suite of systematic reviews and dose-response meta-analyses.

Authors:  Xiang-Dong Wu; Meng-Meng Liu; Ya-Ying Sun; Zhi-Hu Zhao; Quan Zhou; Joey S W Kwong; Wei Xu; Mian Tian; Yao He; Wei Huang
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-12-14       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Hospital volume and mortality for 25 types of inpatient treatment in German hospitals: observational study using complete national data from 2009 to 2014.

Authors:  Ulrike Nimptsch; Thomas Mansky
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-09-06       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.