T Ruffing1,2, M Haunschild3,4, M Egenolf3,5, W Eymann3,6, D Jost3,7, G Wallmen3,8, C Burmeister3. 1. Klinik für Unfallchirurgie und Orthopädie 1, Westpfalz-Klinikum GmbH, Hellmut-Hartert-Str. 1, 67655, Kaiserslautern, Deutschland. thomas@ruffing.eu. 2. SQMed GmbH, Geschäftsstelle Qualitätssicherung Rheinland-Pfalz, Mainz, Deutschland. thomas@ruffing.eu. 3. SQMed GmbH, Geschäftsstelle Qualitätssicherung Rheinland-Pfalz, Mainz, Deutschland. 4. Klinik für allgemeine Orthopädie, Endoprothetik und Kinderorthopädie, Katholisches Klinikum Koblenz-Montabaur, Koblenz-Montabaur, Deutschland. 5. Klinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Evangelisches Krankenhaus Bad Dürkheim, Bad Dürkheim, Deutschland. 6. Medizinischer Dienst der Krankenversicherung Rheinland-Pfalz, Kaiserslautern, Deutschland. 7. Abteilung Chirurgie, Stadtklinik Frankenthal, Frankenthal, Deutschland. 8. Klinik für Unfallchirurgie und Orthopädie, Sankt Vincentius Krankenhaus Speyer, Speyer, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For the "preoperative stay" quality indicator , which is part of the external quality assurance for proximal femoral fractures (module 17/1), a tolerance range for surgery within 48 h after admission of ≤15 % is given. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The structured dialog (2014) in Rheinland-Pfalz was analyzed with respect to reasons for delaying surgery for more than 48 h after admission. RESULTS: A total of 331 cases were analyzed. In 60.7 % patient-related reasons and in 13.3 % administrative reasons were found. In 9.1 % the statements were not feasible. Due to a lack of software-related specifications in 7.3 % a wrong preoperative length of stay was generated. Wrong coding or a computer-related problem was found in 6.6 %. The most common reason for delay was the intake of an anticoagulant (25.7 %). CONCLUSION: The significance of the quality indicator "Preoperative stay" without division into whether this was administrative or patient-related must be considered critically.
BACKGROUND: For the "preoperative stay" quality indicator , which is part of the external quality assurance for proximal femoral fractures (module 17/1), a tolerance range for surgery within 48 h after admission of ≤15 % is given. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The structured dialog (2014) in Rheinland-Pfalz was analyzed with respect to reasons for delaying surgery for more than 48 h after admission. RESULTS: A total of 331 cases were analyzed. In 60.7 % patient-related reasons and in 13.3 % administrative reasons were found. In 9.1 % the statements were not feasible. Due to a lack of software-related specifications in 7.3 % a wrong preoperative length of stay was generated. Wrong coding or a computer-related problem was found in 6.6 %. The most common reason for delay was the intake of an anticoagulant (25.7 %). CONCLUSION: The significance of the quality indicator "Preoperative stay" without division into whether this was administrative or patient-related must be considered critically.
Entities:
Keywords:
External quality assurance; Module 17/1; Preoperative stay; Proximal femoral fractures; Reasons for delay in surgery
Authors: Charles V Pollack; Paul A Reilly; John Eikelboom; Stephan Glund; Peter Verhamme; Richard A Bernstein; Robert Dubiel; Menno V Huisman; Elaine M Hylek; Pieter W Kamphuisen; Jörg Kreuzer; Jerrold H Levy; Frank W Sellke; Joachim Stangier; Thorsten Steiner; Bushi Wang; Chak-Wah Kam; Jeffrey I Weitz Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-06-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Stephan Glund; Joachim Stangier; Michael Schmohl; Dietmar Gansser; Stephen Norris; Joanne van Ryn; Benjamin Lang; Steven Ramael; Viktoria Moschetti; Fredrik Gruenenfelder; Paul Reilly; Jörg Kreuzer Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-06-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: R Smektala; W Schleiz; B Fischer; F Bonnaire; U Schulze-Raestrup; H Siebert; O Boy; J Kötting Journal: Unfallchirurg Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 1.000
Authors: Deborah M Siegal; John T Curnutte; Stuart J Connolly; Genmin Lu; Pamela B Conley; Brian L Wiens; Vandana S Mathur; Janice Castillo; Michele D Bronson; Janet M Leeds; Florie A Mar; Alex Gold; Mark A Crowther Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-11-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ali Darwich; Elio Assaf; Roman Klein; Sascha Gravius; Christoph G Wölfl; Ahmed Jawhar Journal: Z Gerontol Geriatr Date: 2021-03-23 Impact factor: 1.281