ArticleBMC health services research2015
Minimum volume standards in German hospitals: do they get along with procedure centralization? A retrospective longitudinal data analysis.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Geography of Liver Resection: Travel Distance, Facility Volume, and Access to Specialized Care in an Urban Setting.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Quality in colonoscopy: time to ensure national standards are implemented?Frontline gastroenterology · 2023Article
- 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 · 2022Article
- Optimal surgeon and hospital volume thresholds to reduce mortality and length of stay for CABG.PloS one · 2021Article
- Impact of suspending minimum volume requirements for knee arthroplasty on hospitals in Germany: an uncontrolled before-after study.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Should we pay attention to surgeon or hospital volume in total knee arthroplasty? Evidence from a nationwide population-based study.PloS one · 2019Article
- Hospital Volume, In-Hospital Mortality, and Failure to Rescue in Esophageal Surgery.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2018Article
- Volume-outcome relationship and minimum volume regulations in the German hospital sector - evidence from nationwide administrative hospital data for the years 2005-2007.Health economics review · 2018Article
- Influence of Hospital Volume Effects and Minimum Caseload Requirements on Quality of Care in Pancreatic Surgery in Germany.Visceral medicine · 2017Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.