Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26197817›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2015

Minimum volume standards in German hospitals: do they get along with procedure centralization? A retrospective longitudinal data analysis.

Werner de Cruppé, Marc Malik, Max Geraedts

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Defining minimum volume thresholds to increase quality of care: a new patient-oriented approach using mixed integer programming.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Werner de CruppéInstitute for Health Systems Research, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Alfred-Herrhausen-Strasse 50, 58448, Witten, Germany. Werner.deCruppe@uni-wh.de.
Marc MalikInstitute for Health Systems Research, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Alfred-Herrhausen-Strasse 50, 58448, Witten, Germany. Marc.Malik@uni-wh.de.
Max GeraedtsInstitute for Health Systems Research, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Alfred-Herrhausen-Strasse 50, 58448, Witten, Germany. Max.Geraedts@uni-wh.de.
Witten/Herdecke University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCompliance with minimum volume standards for specific procedures serves as a criterion for high-quality patient care. International experiences report a centralization of the respective procedures. In Germany, minimum volume standards for hospitals were introduced in 2004 for 5 procedures (complex esophageal and pancreatic interventions; liver, kidney and stem cell transplantations), in 2006 total knee replacement was added. This study explores whether any centralization is discernible for these procedures in Germany.

methodsA retrospective longitudinal analysis of secondary data serves to determine a possible centralization of procedures from the system perspective. Centralization means that over time, fewer hospitals perform the respective procedure, the case volume in high-volume hospitals increases together with their percentage of the annual total case volume, and the case volume in low-volume hospitals decreases together with their percentage of the annual total case volume. Using data from the mandatory hospital quality reports for the years 2006, 2008 and 2010 we performed Kruskal Wallis and chi-square tests to evaluate potential centralization effects.

resultsNo centralization was found for any of the six types of interventions over the period from 2006 to 2010. The annual case volume and the number of hospitals performing interventions rose at differing rates over the 5-year period depending on the type of intervention. Seven percent of esophagectomies and 14% of pancreatectomies are still performed in hospitals with less than 10 interventions per year.

conclusionsFor the purpose of further centralization of interventions it will be necessary to first analyze and then appropriately address the reasons for non-compliance from the hospital and patient perspective.

Indexed as

Quality of Health CareFemaleGermanyHospitalsHumansLongitudinal StudiesRetrospective StudiesSurgical Procedures, Operative

Identifiers

PMID26197817
PMCPMC4511553
OpenAlexW1755420507

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.