Bewertung von Qualitätsindikatoren für die Notaufnahme: Erstmalige Anwendung eines modifizierten QUALIFY-Ansatzes mit nachfolgender interprofessioneller Expertendiskussion

[Structure and Organization of an Emergency Department]

The more diverse the German hospital landscape, the more important it is to define tasks and processes in order to ensure a uniform standard of care at the highest level for the population. With the introduction of additional training in clinical acute and emergency medicine and specifications for inpatient emergency care, important foundations for the necessary structure of emergency rooms have been given.

Length of stay as quality indicator in emergency departments: analysis of determinants in the German Emergency Department Data Registry (AKTIN registry)

Several indicators reflect the quality of care within emergency departments (ED). The length of stay (LOS) of emergency patients represents one of the most important performance measures. Determinants of LOS have not yet been evaluated in large cohorts in Germany. This study analyzed the fixed and influenceable determinants of LOS by evaluating data from the German Emergency Department Data Registry (AKTIN registry). We performed a retrospective evaluation of all adult (age ≥ 18 years) ED patients enrolled in the AKTIN registry for the year 2019. Primary outcome was LOS for the whole cohort; secondary outcomes included LOS stratified by (1) patient-related, (2) organizational-related and (3) structure-related factors. Overall, 304,606 patients from 12 EDs were included. Average LOS for all patients was 3 h 28 min (95% CI 3 h 27 min-3 h 29 min). Regardless of other variables, patients admitted to hospital stayed 64 min longer than non-admitted patients. LOS increased with patients' age, was shorter for walk-in patients compared to medical referral, and longer for non-trauma presenting complaints. Relevant differences were also found for acuity level, day of the week, and emergency care levels. We identified different factors influencing the duration of LOS in the ED. Total LOS was dependent on patient-related factors (age), disease-related factors (presentation complaint and triage level), and organizational factors (weekday and admitted/non-admitted status). These findings are important for the development of management strategies to optimize patient flow through the ED and thus to prevent overcrowding.

[Biometric properties of QUALIFY: a tool for assessing quality indicators]

INTRODUCTION

Accurate health care evaluation using quality indicators (QIs) is of vital clinical importance for a quality-oriented health care system. The QUALIFY tool is the current research standard for assessing QIs of health care; however, its biometric properties in psychiatry have not yet been evaluated empirically. Our aim was to evaluate the internal consistency and structure of QUALIFY.

METHODS

This study applies a literature-based post-hoc analytical design to a sample of 289 QIs of mental health care. First, the indicators were assessed on the basis of nineteen ordinal QUALIFY criteria as a single measuring tool. Second, using Cronbach's alpha the internal consistency of the measuring tool was evaluated and the structure of QUALIFY using an explorative principal component analysis was tested.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The tool showed an acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's α=0.75), with three criteria (consideration of potential risks/side effects when using the indicator, implementation barriers taken into account, and the ability to influence the indicator) being inconsistent with the full scale. If these three criteria were not taken into account, the tool had a good internal consistency (Cronbach's α=0.81). The QUALIFY structural matrix comprises three components, one of which reflected six from eight original quality criteria of the scientific category. The other two components represent the semiotic structure of the QIs.

CONCLUSION

QUALIFY is an internally inconsistent instrument, which may be useful to assess mental health care QIs. The information about the structure of QUALIFY can be applied for the purposes of research planning as well as the interpretation and development of QIs.

Der AKTIN-Monatsbericht: Plädoyer für ein standardisiertes Reporting in der Notaufnahme

Hintergrund

Vor dem Hintergrund der steigenden Inanspruchnahme und aktuellen Veränderungen in der Notfallversorgung ist eine standardisierte Erfassung relevanter Kennzahlen in Notaufnahmen zwingend erforderlich.

Ziel der Arbeit

Es werden die Konsentierung von Inhalten und technische Umsetzung eines automatisierten Reportings für Notaufnahmen des AKTIN-Notaufnahmeregisters beschrieben. Ziel war ein aussagefähiger Monatsbericht zur Prozesssteuerung und Qualitätssicherung.

Material und Methoden

Datengrundlage ist der Datensatz Notaufnahme V2015.1 der Deutschen Interdisziplinären Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin e. V. (DIVI). Die Konsentierung der Inhalte erfolgte auf Basis von externen Referenzen und fachlicher Expertise; die technische Entwicklung erfolgte anhand eines Testdatensatzes. Mit der Software R und Apache Formatting Objects Processor (FOP) wird der finale Bericht im PDF-Format automatisiert erstellt.

Ergebnisse

Der Bericht enthält unter anderem Angaben zu Fallzahlen, Demografie der Patienten, Vorstellungsgründen, Ersteinschätzung, Verbleib und ausgewählten Prozesszeiten in Form von Tabellen und Grafiken. Er wird monatsweise automatisch oder auf Anforderung aus den Routinedaten generiert. Fehlende Werte und Ausreißer werden zur Abschätzung der Datenqualität separat ausgewiesen.

Diskussion

Beim AKTIN-Monatsbericht handelt es sich um ein Instrument, welches das Versorgungsgeschehen aufbereitet und visualisiert. Die konsentierten Kennzahlen sind praxistauglich und bilden auch die Vorgaben des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses zur Ersteinschätzung ab. Die Nutzung von Interoperabilitätsstandards erlaubt eine automatische Erfassung im Alltag, gewährleistet eine Unabhängigkeit von einzelnen IT-Systemen und kann als Grundlage für ein klinikübergreifendes Benchmarking dienen.

[Development of a new module for the TraumaRegister DGU® : Better collation of the sequelae of severe injuries during pregnancy]

BACKGROUND

Life-threatening injuries during pregnancy are a rare occurrence. The TraumaRegister DGU^® (TR-DGU) has been recording whether seriously injured women were pregnant since 2016. This information is not sufficient to enable a differentiated assessment of the quality of care because parameters, such as gestational age, state of pregnancy at discharge and survival of the child are missing. The TraumaRegister working group of the committee on emergency medicine, intensive care and severe trauma management (section NIS) of the German Trauma Society (DGU) therefore came to the conclusion that the fetal outcome or the intactness of the pregnancy after acute treatment is an important measure of the quality of care of pregnant women. They commissioned a task force to work out a suitable data set for a better analysis of such cases. This article presents the so-called fetus module in detail.

METHODS

The data set was developed in an interdisciplinary process together with accredited experts from the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG), the German Society for Perinatal Medicine (DGPM) and the Society for Neonatology and Pediatric Intensive Care Medicine (GNPI).

RESULTS

The fetus module comprises 20 parameters describing the pregnancy, the condition of the mother and child on admission and discharge.

CONCLUSION

The fetus module will provide important data to make the process and outcome quality of care of severely injured pregnant women measurable and to develop prognostic instruments with which predictions about high-risk constellations for the outcome of mother and child can be made.

Evaluation of outcome relevance of quality indicators in the emergency department (ENQuIRE): study protocol for a prospective multicentre cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Quality of emergency department (ED) care affects patient outcomes substantially. Quality indicators (QIs) for ED care are a major challenge due to the heterogeneity of patient populations, health care structures and processes in Germany. Although a number of quality measures are already in use, there is a paucity of data on the importance of these QIs on medium-term and long-term outcomes. The evaluation of outcome relevance of quality indicators in the emergency department study (ENQuIRE) aims to identify and investigate the relevance of QIs in the ED on patient outcomes in a 12-month follow-up.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study is a prospective non-interventional multicentre cohort study conducted in 15 EDs throughout Germany. Included are all patients in 2019, who were ≥18 years of age, insured at the Techniker Krankenkasse (statutory health insurance (SHI)) and gave their written informed consent to the study.The primary objective of the study is to assess the effect of selected quality measures on patient outcome. The data collected for this purpose comprise medical records from the ED treatment, discharge (claims) data from hospitalised patients, a patient questionnaire to be answered 6-8 weeks after emergency admission, and outcome measures in a 12-month follow-up obtained as claims data from the SHI.Descriptive and analytical statistics will be applied to provide summaries about the characteristics of QIs and associations between quality measures and patient outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Approval of the leading ethics committee at the Medical Faculty of the University of Magdeburg (reference number 163/18 from 19 November 2018) has been obtained and adapted by responsible local ethics committees.The findings of this work will be disseminated by publication of peer-reviewed manuscripts and presentations as conference contributions (abstracts, poster or oral presentations).Moreover, results will be discussed with clinical experts and medical associations before being proposed for implementation into the quality management of EDs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

German Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS00015203); Pre-results.

[Restructuring of inpatient emergency treatment : What will change?]

The resolution on the restructuring of inpatient emergency treatment was passed by the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) on 19 April 2018 based on the Hospital Structure Act and became binding with the publication in the Bundesanzeiger on 18 May 2018. The resolution describes the future structural and qualitative prerequisites for participation of hospitals in the provision of emergency treatment in three levels: basic emergency treatment, extended emergency treatment and comprehensive emergency treatment. Furthermore, a level of nonparticipation is also planned. In addition, there are special modules, e.g. for the treatment of children and auxiliary modules for specifically equipped hospitals with highly specialized patient treatment (e.g. stroke unit). A transition regulation period of 3-5 years provides hospitals with the possibility to adjust to the new minimum requirements. The German Hospital Federation (DKG) and the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Funds (GKV-SV) will negotiate the assessment of surcharges and deductions subsequent to the resolution.

Assessing healthcare service quality using routinely collected data: Linking information systems in emergency care

Emergency departments need to continuously calculate quality indicators in order to perform structural improvements, improvements in the daily routine, and ad-hoc improvements in everyday life. However, many different actors across multiple disciplines collaborate to provide emergency care. Hence, patient-related data is stored in several information systems, which in turn makes the calculation of quality indicators more difficult. To address this issue, we aim to link and use routinely collected data of the different actors within the emergency care continuum. In order to assess the feasibility of linking and using routinely collected data for quality indicators and whether this approach adds value to the assessment of emergency care quality, we conducted a single case study in a German academic teaching hospital. We analyzed the available data of the existing information systems in the emergency continuum and linked and pre-processed the data. Based on this, we then calculated four quality indicators (Left Without Been Seen, Unplanned Reattendance, Diagnostic Efficiency, and Overload Closure). Lessons learned from the calculation and results of the discussions with staff members that had multiple years of work experience in the emergency department provide a better understanding of the quality of the emergency department, the related challenges during the calculation, and the added value of linking routinely collected data.

Evaluation of new quality indicators for the TraumaRegister DGU® using the systematic QUALIFY methodology

BACKGROUND

The TraumaRegister DGU^® (TR-DGU) of the German Trauma Society (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie, DGU) enables the participating hospitals to perform quality management. For that purpose, nine so-called audit filters have existed, since its foundation, which, inter alia, is listed in the Annual Report. The objective of this study effort is a revision of these quality indicators with the aim of developing pertinent new and reliable quality indicators for the management of severely injured patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Apart from indicators already used at national and international levels, a systematic review of the literature revealed further potential key figures for quality of the management of severely injured patients. The latter were evaluated by an interdisciplinary and interprofessional group of experts using a standardized QUALIFY process to assess their suitability as a quality indicator.

RESULTS

By means of the review of the literature, 39 potential indicators could be identified. 9 and 14 indicators, respectively, were identified in existing trauma registries (TR-DGU and TARN), 17 in the ATLS^® training concept, and 57 in the S3 guideline on the treatment of polytrauma/severe injuries. The exclusion of duplicates and the limitation to indicators that can be collected using the TR-DGU Version 2015 data set resulted in a total of 43 indicators to be reviewed. For each of the 43 indicators, 13 quality criteria were assessed. A consensus was achieved in 305 out of 559 individual assessments. With 13 quality criteria assessed and 43 indicators correspond this to a relative consensus value of 54.6%. None of the indicators achieved a consensus in all 13 quality criteria assessed. The following 13 indicators achieved a consensus in at least 9 quality criteria: time between hospital admission and WBCT, mortality, administration of tranexamic acid to bleeding patients, use of CCT with GCS <14, time until first emergency surgical intervention (7-item list in the TR-DGU), time until surgical intervention for penetrating trauma, application of pelvic sling belt (prehospital), capnometry (etCO₂) in intubated patients, time until CCT with GCS < 15, time until surgery for hemorrhagic shock, time until craniotomy for severe TBI, prehospital airway management in unconscious patients (GCS < 9), and complete basic diagnostics available. Two indicators achieved a consensus in 11 criteria and thus represent the maximum consensus achieved within the group of experts. Four indicators only achieved a consensus in three quality criteria. 17 indicators had a mean value for the 3 relevance criteria of ≥ 3.5 and were, therefore, assessed by the group of experts as being highly relevant.

CONCLUSION

Not all the key figures published for the management of severely injured patients are suitable for use as quality indicators. It remains to be seen whether the quality indicators identified by experts using the QUALIFY process will meet the requirements in practice. Prior to the implementation of the assessed quality indicators in standardized quality assurance programs, a scientific evaluation based on national data will be required.