[Impact of quality measurement, transparency and peer review on in-hospital mortality - retrospective before-after study with 63 hospitals]

Detection of Adverse Events With the Austrian Inpatient Quality Indicators

OBJECTIVES

Indicators based on routine data are considered a readily available and cost-effective method for assessing health care quality and safety. The Austrian Inpatient Quality Indicators (A-IQI) have been introduced in all Austrian public hospitals as a mandatory quality measurement. The purpose of this study was to assess the value of conspicuous A-IQI in predicting the presence of adverse events (AEs).

METHODS

We conducted an exploratory study comparing all indicator-positive patient cases contributing to 18 conspicuous A-IQI indicators to randomly selected indicator-negative control cases regarding the prevalence and severity of AEs. Structured medical record review using the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Global Trigger Tool was used as the gold standard.

RESULTS

In 421 chart reviews, we identified 158 AEs. 70.9% (n = 112) of the AEs were found in cases with a positive indicator. The relative risk of an AE occurring was 3.47 (95% confidence interval: 2.30, 5.24) in indicator-positive cases compared to indicator-negatives. The proportion of severe events (National Coordination Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention Index categories H and I) was 54.5% (n = 61) in indicator-positive cases and only 15.3% (n = 7) in indicator-negative cases. Overall sensitivity of the A-IQI was 68.2%, specificity 69.4%, positive predictive value 36.0%, and negative predictive value 89.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that significantly more AEs and more severe AEs were found in cases with positive A-IQI than in indicator-negative control cases. However, studies with larger numbers of cases and with larger numbers of conspicuous indicators are needed for the validation of the entire A-IQI indicator set.

[Quality of care analyses using ICD 11 : Detailed capture of treatment events]

The identification of treatment errors, the so-called "undesirable" or "critical incidents", is crucial for improving and developing the quality of care. The new International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems-ICD-11-supports a structured data collection in the context of the quality of care and patient safety. Documentation conceptually relies on the multiple coding of the three dimensions of a critical incident: harm, cause, and mode. In this way, it is possible to capture the event in great detail, including the reasons for it and the effects it has. An evaluation of this concept in a field trial using 45 clinical case studies showed good concordance in coding across the documented participants.As the ICD-11 permits the detailed capture of near misses and their context, it could be used for structured documentation in incident reporting systems (databanks for the anonymous reporting of treatment errors). In this way, the error reports can be gathered in a more systematic way, so that they can be used for better quality improvement.In quality assessment, it is important to consider the time of diagnosis. Thus, the feature present on admission (POA) is a diagnosis qualifier that is of substantial importance for quality assessment and is widely used internationally. Up to now, it has not been permanently available in Germany. ICD-11 includes the relevant code.

The pancreatic surgery registry (StuDoQ|Pancreas) of the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery (DGAV) - presentation and systematic quality evaluation

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic resections are among the most complex procedures in visceral surgery. While mortality has decreased substantially over the past decades, morbidity remains high. The volume-outcome correlation in pancreatic surgery is among the strongest in the field of surgery. The German Society for General and Visceral Surgery (DGAV) established a national registry for quality control, risk assessment and outcomes research in pancreatic surgery in Germany (DGAV SuDoQ|Pancreas).

METHODS

Here, we present the aims and scope of the DGAV StuDoQ|Pancreas Registry. A systematic assessment of registry quality is performed based on the recommendations of the German network for outcomes research (DNVF).

RESULTS

The registry quality was assessed by consensus criteria of the DNVF in regard to the domains Systematics and Appropriateness, Standardization, Validity of the sampling procedure, Validity of data collection, Validity of statistical analysis and reports, and General demands for registry quality. In summary, DGAV StuDoQ|Pancreas meets most of the criteria of a high-quality clinical registry.

CONCLUSION

The DGAV StuDoQ|Pancreas provides a valuable platform for quality assessment, outcomes research as well as randomized registry trials in pancreatic surgery.