Mandatory quality reports in Germany from the hospitals' point of view: a cross-sectional observational study

Association between hospital ownership and patient selection, management, and outcomes after carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting : - Secondary data analysis of the Bavarian statutory quality assurance database

BACKGROUND

This study analyses the association between hospital ownership and patient selection, treatment, and outcome of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS).

METHODS

The analysis is based on the Bavarian subset of the nationwide German statutory quality assurance database. All patients receiving CEA or CAS for carotid artery stenosis between 2014 and 2018 were included. Hospitals were subdivided into four groups: university hospitals, public hospitals, hospitals owned by charitable organizations, and private hospitals. The primary outcome was any stroke or death until discharge from hospital. Research was funded by Germany's Federal Joint Committee Innovation Fund (01VSF19016 ISAR-IQ).

RESULTS

In total, 22,446 patients were included. The majority of patients were treated in public hospitals (62%), followed by private hospitals (17%), university hospitals (16%), and hospitals under charitable ownership (6%). Two thirds of patients were male (68%), and the median age was 72 years. CAS was most often applied in university hospitals (25%) and most rarely used in private hospitals (9%). Compared to university hospitals, patients in private hospitals were more likely asymptomatic (65% vs. 49%). In asymptomatic patients, the risk of stroke or death was 1.3% in university hospitals, 1.5% in public hospitals, 1.0% in hospitals of charitable owners, and 1.2% in private hospitals. In symptomatic patients, these figures were 3.0%, 2.5%, 3.4%, and 1.2% respectively. Univariate analysis revealed no statistically significant differences between hospital groups. In the multivariable analysis, compared to university hospitals, the odds ratio of stroke or death in asymptomatic patients treated by CEA was significantly lower in charitable hospitals (OR 0.19 [95%-CI 0.07-0.56, p = 0.002]) and private hospitals (OR 0.47 [95%-CI 0.23-0.98, p = 0.043]). In symptomatic patients (elective treatment, CEA), patients treated in private or public hospitals showed a significantly lower odds ratio compared to university hospitals (0.36 [95%-CI 0.17-0.72, p = 0.004] and 0.65 [95%-CI 0.42-1.00, p = 0.048], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital ownership was related to patient selection and treatment, but not generally to outcomes. The lower risk of stroke or death in the subgroup of electively treated patients in private hospitals might be due to the right timing, the choice of treatment modality or actually to better structural and process quality.

Validation of patient- and GP-reported core sets of quality indicators for older adults with multimorbidity in primary care: results of the cross-sectional observational MULTIqual validation study

BACKGROUND

Older adults with multimorbidity represent a growing segment of the population. Metrics to assess quality, safety and effectiveness of care can support policy makers and healthcare providers in addressing patient needs. However, there is a lack of valid measures of quality of care for this population. In the MULTIqual project, 24 general practitioner (GP)-reported and 14 patient-reported quality indicators for the healthcare of older adults with multimorbidity were developed in Germany in a systematic approach. This study aimed to select, validate and pilot core sets of these indicators.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional observational study, we collected data in general practices (n = 35) and patients aged 65 years and older with three or more chronic conditions (n = 346). One-dimensional core sets for both perspectives were selected by stepwise backward selection based on corrected item-total correlations. We established structural validity, discriminative capacity, feasibility and patient-professional agreement for the selected indicators. Multilevel multivariable linear regression models adjusted for random effects at practice level were calculated to examine construct validity.

RESULTS

Twelve GP-reported and seven patient-reported indicators were selected, with item-total correlations ranging from 0.332 to 0.576. Fulfilment rates ranged from 24.6 to 89.0%. Between 0 and 12.7% of the values were missing. Seventeen indicators had agreement rates between patients and professionals of 24.1% to 75.9% and one had 90.7% positive and 5.1% negative agreement. Patients who were born abroad (- 1.04, 95% CI =  - 2.00/ - 0.08, p = 0.033) and had higher health-related quality of life (- 1.37, 95% CI =  - 2.39/ - 0.36, p = 0.008), fewer contacts with their GP (0.14, 95% CI = 0.04/0.23, p = 0.007) and lower willingness to use their GPs as coordinators of their care (0.13, 95% CI = 0.06/0.20, p < 0.001) were more likely to have lower GP-reported healthcare quality scores. Patients who had fewer GP contacts (0.12, 95% CI = 0.04/0.20, p = 0.002) and were less willing to use their GP to coordinate their care (0.16, 95% CI = 0.10/0.21, p < 0.001) were more likely to have lower patient-reported healthcare quality scores.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality indicator core sets are the first brief measurement tools specifically designed to assess quality of care for patients with multimorbidity. The indicators can facilitate implementation of treatment standards and offer viable alternatives to the current practice of combining disease-related metrics with poor applicability to patients with multimorbidity.

Achieving minimum caseload requirements: an analysis of hospital quality control reports from 2004-2010

BACKGROUND

Legally mandated minimum hospital caseload requirements for certain invasive procedures, including pancreatectomy, esophagectomy, and some types of organ transplantation, have been in effect in Germany since 2004. The goal of such requirements is to improve patient care by ensuring that patients undergo certain procedures only in hospitals that have met the corresponding minimum caseload requirement. We used the case numbers published in legally mandated hospital quality control reports to determine whether the hospitals actually met the stipulated requirements.

METHOD

We performed a secondary analysis of data supplied by hospitals in their quality control reports for the years 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010 with respect to six procedures that have a minimum caseload requirement: complex interventions on the esophagus and pancreas, total knee replacement, and hepatic, renal, and stem-cell transplantation.

RESULTS

The total case numbers for these six different procedures rose from 22 064 (0.1% of all procedures) in 2004 to 170 801 (0.9% of all procedures) in 2010. From 2006 onward, procedures to which minimum caseload requirements apply have been carried out in half of all hospitals studied. These procedures account for 0.9% of all inpatient cases in Germany. The percentage of hospitals that continue to perform certain procedures despite not having met the minimum caseload requirement ranged from 5% to 45%, depending on the type of procedure, and the percentage of cases carried out in such hospitals ranged from 1% to 15%. These values remained nearly constant for each of the six minimum caseload requirements over the 4 reporting years for which data were examined.

CONCLUSION

The establishment of minimum caseload requirements in Germany in 2004 did not lessen the number of cases performed in violation of these requirements over the period 2004 to 2010.

The public disclosure of accreditation information in Australia: stakeholder perceptions of opportunities and challenges

Public disclosure is increasingly a requirement of accrediting agencies and governments. There are few published empirical evaluations of disclosure interventions that inform evidence-based implementation or policy. This study investigated the practices associated with the public disclosure of healthcare accreditation information, in addition to multi-stakeholder perceptions of key challenges and opportunities for improvement. We conducted a mixed methods study comprising analysis of disclosure practices by accreditation agencies, and 47 semi-structured individual or group interviews involving 258 people. Participants were diverse stakeholders associated with Australian primary, acute and residential aged care accreditation programmes. Four interrelated issues were identified. First, there was broad agreement that accreditation information should be publicly disclosed, although the three accreditation agencies differed in the information they made public. Second, two implementation issues emerged: the need to educate the community about accreditation information, and the practical question of the detail to be provided. Third, the impact, both positive and negative, of disclosing accreditation information was raised. Fourth, the lack of knowledge about the impact on consumers was discussed. Public disclosure of accreditation information is an idea that has widespread support. However, translating the idea into practice, so as to produce appropriate, meaningful information, is a challenge.