Werner de Cruppé1, Max Geraedts1. 1. Institut für Versorgungsforschung und Klinische Epidemiologie, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Fachbereich Medizin, Deutschland.
Abstract
STUDY AIM: The minimum volume standards for hospitals in Germany, in force since 2004, provide four exemptions for non-complying hospitals. This study investigates the extent and importance of these exemptions for complex procedures on the oesophagus and pancreas for all non-complying hospitals and for the revised minimum volume regulations in force since the beginning of 2018. METHOD: Longitudinal, descriptive analyses of data on minimum volume standards and their exemptions for complex procedures on the oesophagus and pancreas, as presented by the hospital quality report cards of the reporting years from 2006 to 2014. RESULTS: For each year and both procedures, about 120 hospitals with some 500 cases report non-compliance with the minimum volume standards. Of these a third report no exemptions (with 180 procedures), a third state emergencies (110), and another third report exemptions due to internal hospital restructuring (210). Ensuring geographical access to care as an exemption is of no importance. After the three year exemption period for installation of a new service line, 20% of the hospitals with procedures on the oesophagus and 30% on the pancreas complied with the minimum volume standards. After the two-year period for staff realignment, the figures were 40 and 50%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Exemptions do not entirely explain all procedures performed by hospitals not complying with the minimum volume standards. The revised minimum volume regulations' restructuring of exemptions to "emergencies" and "new or renewed service lines" with a two year exemption period, are concordant with the empirical findings of this study. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
STUDY AIM: The minimum volume standards for hospitals in Germany, in force since 2004, provide four exemptions for non-complying hospitals. This study investigates the extent and importance of these exemptions for complex procedures on the oesophagus and pancreas for all non-complying hospitals and for the revised minimum volume regulations in force since the beginning of 2018. METHOD: Longitudinal, descriptive analyses of data on minimum volume standards and their exemptions for complex procedures on the oesophagus and pancreas, as presented by the hospital quality report cards of the reporting years from 2006 to 2014. RESULTS: For each year and both procedures, about 120 hospitals with some 500 cases report non-compliance with the minimum volume standards. Of these a third report no exemptions (with 180 procedures), a third state emergencies (110), and another third report exemptions due to internal hospital restructuring (210). Ensuring geographical access to care as an exemption is of no importance. After the three year exemption period for installation of a new service line, 20% of the hospitals with procedures on the oesophagus and 30% on the pancreas complied with the minimum volume standards. After the two-year period for staff realignment, the figures were 40 and 50%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Exemptions do not entirely explain all procedures performed by hospitals not complying with the minimum volume standards. The revised minimum volume regulations' restructuring of exemptions to "emergencies" and "new or renewed service lines" with a two year exemption period, are concordant with the empirical findings of this study. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.