Wolfram Keßler1, Claus-Dieter Heidecke1,2. 1. Department of General, Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Universitätsmedizin Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany. 2. Chirurgische Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Qualität, Sicherheit und Versorgungsforschung (CAQS-V), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Chirurgie (DGCH), Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 'Quality in medicine' is a term used in a broad sense. In this work the definition and dimensions of quality in medicine and the implementation of a measurement and reporting system in Germany are discussed. Existing applications are described and possible future effects are pointed out. METHODS: The ongoing process of implementing a quality reporting system into the German healthcare system is studied by publicly available legal texts, published reactions of stakeholders and publications of G-BA and IQTIG. Definitions of quality, dimensions of quality and quality measurement in medicine are studied by using textbooks as well as the world wide web and PubMed search. RESULTS: Donabedian's 'dimensions of quality' are fundamental in dealing with quality in medicine. Existing measurement and reporting systems have immanent strengths and weaknesses, as the definition of quality is affected by one's point of view. The legislator will have to decide which 'dimension of quality' is mandatory and how to measure it. CONCLUSION: Quality has become a control instrument with unforeseeable consequences. A clear definition of the used quality concept is as essential as the use of feasible measurement and reporting systems. The use of routine data could be an interesting option.
BACKGROUND: 'Quality in medicine' is a term used in a broad sense. In this work the definition and dimensions of quality in medicine and the implementation of a measurement and reporting system in Germany are discussed. Existing applications are described and possible future effects are pointed out. METHODS: The ongoing process of implementing a quality reporting system into the German healthcare system is studied by publicly available legal texts, published reactions of stakeholders and publications of G-BA and IQTIG. Definitions of quality, dimensions of quality and quality measurement in medicine are studied by using textbooks as well as the world wide web and PubMed search. RESULTS: Donabedian's 'dimensions of quality' are fundamental in dealing with quality in medicine. Existing measurement and reporting systems have immanent strengths and weaknesses, as the definition of quality is affected by one's point of view. The legislator will have to decide which 'dimension of quality' is mandatory and how to measure it. CONCLUSION: Quality has become a control instrument with unforeseeable consequences. A clear definition of the used quality concept is as essential as the use of feasible measurement and reporting systems. The use of routine data could be an interesting option.
Authors: Carsten N Gutt; Jens Encke; Jörg Köninger; Julian-Camill Harnoss; Kilian Weigand; Karl Kipfmüller; Oliver Schunter; Thorsten Götze; Markus T Golling; Markus Menges; Ernst Klar; Katharina Feilhauer; Wolfram G Zoller; Karsten Ridwelski; Sven Ackmann; Alexandra Baron; Michael R Schön; Helmut K Seitz; Dietmar Daniel; Wolfgang Stremmel; Markus W Büchler Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Florian Debus; Rolf Lefering; Michael Frink; Christian Alexander Kühne; Carsten Mand; Benjamin Bücking; Steffen Ruchholtz Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2015-12-04 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: R F de Wilde; M G H Besselink; I van der Tweel; I H J T de Hingh; C H J van Eijck; C H C Dejong; R J Porte; D J Gouma; O R C Busch; I Q Molenaar Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2012-01-11 Impact factor: 6.939