Search

Background: Health services research often relies on secondary data, necessitating quality checks for completeness, validity, and potential errors before use. Various methods address implausible data, including data elimination, statistical estimation, or value substitution from the same or another dataset. This study presents an internal validation process of a secondary dataset used to investigate hospital compliance with minimum caseload requirements (MCR) in Germany. The secondary data source validated is the German Hospital Quality Reports (GHQR), an official dataset containing structured self-reported data from all hospitals in Germany. Methods: This study conducted an internal cross-field validation of MCR-related data in GHQR from 2016 to 2021. The validation process checked the validity of reported MCR caseloads, including data availability and consistency, by comparing the stated MCR caseload with further variables in the GHQR. Subsequently, implausible MCR caseload values were corrected using the most plausible values given in the same GHQR. The study also analysed the error sources and used reimbursement-related Diagnosis Related Groups Statistic data to assess the validation outcomes. Results: The analysis focused on four MCR procedures. 11.8–27.7% of the total MCR caseload values in the GHQR appeared ambiguous, and 7.9–23.7% were corrected. The correction added 0.7–3.7% of cases not previously stated as MCR caseloads and added 1.5–26.1% of hospital sites as MCR performing hospitals not previously stated in the GHQR. The main error source was this non-reporting of MCR caseloads, especially by hospitals with low case numbers. The basic plausibility control implemented by the Federal Joint Committee since 2018 has improved the MCR-related data quality over time. Conclusions: This study employed a comprehensive approach to dataset internal validation that encompassed: (1) hospital association level data, (2) hospital site level data and (3) medical department level data, (4) report data spanning six years, and (5) logical plausibility checks. To ensure data completeness, we selected the most plausible values without eliminating incomplete or implausible data. For future practice, we recommend a validation process when using GHQR as a data source for MCR-related research. Additionally, an adapted plausibility control could help to improve the quality of MCR documentation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In longitudinal health services research, hospital identification using an ID code, often supplemented with several additional variables, lacks clarity regarding representativeness and variable influence. This study presents an operational method for hospital identity delimitation and a novel longitudinal identification approach, demonstrated using a case study. Methods: The conceptualisation considers hospitals as evolving entities, identifying "similar enough" pairs across two time points using an automated similarity matrix. This method comprises key variable selection, similarity scoring, and tolerance threshold definition, tailored to data source characteristics and clinical relevance. This linking method is tested by applying the identification of minimum caseload requirements-related German hospitals, utilizing German Hospital Quality Reports (GHQR) 2016–2020. Results: The method achieved a success rate (min: 97.9% - max: 100%, mean: 99.9%) surpassing traditional hospital ID-code linkage (min: 91.5% - max: 98.8%, mean: 96.6%), with a remarkable 99% reduction in manual work through automation. Conclusions: This method, rooted in a comprehensive understanding of hospital identities, offers an operational, automated, and customisable process serving diverse clinical topics. This approach has the advantage of simultaneously considering multiple variables and systematically observing temporal changes in hospitals. It also enhances the precision and efficiency of longitudinal hospital identification in health services research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The choice of a hospital should be based on individual need and accessibility. For maternity hospitals, this includes known or expected risk factors, the geographic accessibility and level of care provided by the hospital. This study aims to identify factors influencing hospital choice with the aim to analyze if and how many deliveries are conducted in a risk-appropriate and accessible setting in Bavaria, Germany. Methods: This is a cross-sectional secondary data analysis based on all first births in Bavaria (2015-18) provided by the Bavarian Quality Assurance Institute for Medical Care. Information on the mother and on the hospital were included. The Bavarian Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010 was used to account for area-level socioeconomic differences. Multiple logistic regression models were used to estimate the strength of association of the predicting factors and to adjust for confounding. Results: We included 195,087 births. Distances to perinatal centers were longer than to other hospitals (16 km vs. 12 km). 10% of women with documented risk pregnancies did not deliver in a perinatal center. Regressions showed that higher age (OR 1.03; 1.02–1.03 95%-CI) and risk pregnancy (OR 1.44; 1.41–1.47 95%-CI) were associated with choosing a perinatal center. The distances travelled show high regional variation with a strong urban-rural divide. Conclusion: In a health system with free choice of hospitals, many women chose a hospital close to home and/or according to their risks. However, this is not the case for 10% of mothers, a group that would benefit from more coordinated care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, we aimed to examine the healthcare preferences and perspectives of citizens in the Western Balkans (namely Albania, North Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina), as well as their trust toward medical professionals of various genders and ages. Almost 4,000 citizens (N = 3,789) of six countries in the Western Balkans (Albania, North Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina) were surveyed using a self-reported questionnaire in this inter-country cross-sectional study. Most of the participants state that their ethnicity (86%) or religion (89%) has no effect on receiving services in healthcare institutions when the doctor is from a different ethnicity or religion (p < 0.05). One-third of the study's participants stated that they don't necessarily prefer to be treated by medical doctors who approach all patients of different nationalities equally. Finally, this article demonstrates that the majority of Balkan citizens had no disparities when receiving medical care from a medical doctor of a different ethnicity or religion. About one-third of the research participants nurture tolerance and diversity as a behavior culture and do not want to be treated by a doctor who discriminates against patients of different nationalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A key underpinning of choice of health care provider is that patients make active and informed decisions which stimulate quality competition. By imitating the principles of a market in the steering of health care, patients thus assume the role of consumers. Few patients however neither consider alternative providers nor seek information about quality. The aim of this study was to investigate if and how patients engage in the role of being active and informed consumers in the setting of primary care, and how they argue for their choice. The study was based on semi‐structured interviews with 18 respondents in a municipality in mid‐Sweden. Respondents were purposefully sampled and interviews were analysed using an inductive thematic approach. Findings demonstrated that patients disengaged from choice by arguing, for instance, that they were satisfied with their current provider or because they perceived no differences in quality. Overall, results were in line with previous studies performed in US and European hospital settings, indicating that patients present some similar arguments regarding disengagement from choice irrespective of level of care or geographical setting. Arguments specifically related to the primary care level were that patients found it more important to achieve continuity in the patient‐doctor relationship than 'shopping around' for the best provider, or that they desired more profiled services to actively make a choice. In contrast to previous literature, patients refuted the 'patient‐consumer' role by referring to, for instance, the belief that care should be of equal quality independent of what choice they made. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Public Health Forum is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: This paper analyses the volume-outcome relationship and the effects of minimum volume regulations in the German hospital sector.Methods: We use a full sample of administrative data from the unselected, complete German hospital population for the years 2005 to 2007. We apply regression methods to analyze the association between volume and hospital quality. We measure hospital quality with a binary variable, which indicates whether the patient has died in hospital. Using simulation techniques we examine the impact of the minimum volume regulations on the accessibility of hospital services.Results: We find a highly significant negative relationship between case volume and mortality for complex interventions at the pancreas and oesophagus as well as for knee replacement. For liver, kidney and stem cell transplantation as well as for CABG we could not find a strong association between volume and quality. Access to hospital care is only moderately affected by minimum volume regulations.Conclusion: The effectiveness of minimum volume regulations depends on the type of intervention. Depending on the type of intervention, quality gains can be expected at the cost of slightly decreased access to care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To explore effects of disease prevalence adjustment on ambulatory care-sensitive hospitalization (ACSH) rates used for quality comparisons.Data Sources/study Setting: County-level hospital administrative data on adults discharged from German hospitals in 2011 and prevalence estimates based on administrative ambulatory diagnosis data were used.Study Design: A retrospective cross-sectional study using in- and outpatient secondary data was performed.Data Collection: Hospitalization data for hypertension, diabetes, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and asthma were obtained from the German Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) database. Prevalence estimates were obtained from the German Central Research Institute of Ambulatory Health Care.Principal Findings: Crude hospitalization rates varied substantially across counties (coefficients of variation [CV] 28-37 percent across conditions); this variation was reduced by prevalence adjustment (CV 21-28 percent). Prevalence explained 40-50 percent of the observed variation (r = 0.65-0.70) in ACSH rates for all conditions except asthma (r = 0.07). Between 30 percent and 38 percent of areas moved into or outside condition-specific control limits with prevalence adjustment.Conclusions: Unadjusted ACSH rates should be used with caution for high-stakes public reporting as differences in prevalence may have a marked impact. Prevalence adjustment should be considered in models analyzing ACSH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of International Journal for Quality in Health Care is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article focuses on the Minimum Volumes Directive (MVV) of the German Federal Joint Committee regarding legal minimum volumes for five types of surgical intervention, including kidney, liver and stem-cell transplantation and complex pancreatic or esophageal interventions. It offers information on a study done to investigate the implementation of the minimum volumes and their effects on the structure of patient care, on the hospitals and on outcomes.