ArticleBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2026
[Regular inspections of hospitals by the public health service: nationwide representative data collection on structure, organization, and content in Germany].
Article in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn Germany, hospitals undergo routine inspections (RIs) by public health authorities in an occasion-independent manner for infection prevention and control (IPC). Structure and organization of RIs is at the discretion of respective public health authorities (PHAs) and can therefore differ between districts. This work aims to provide the first representative overview of structure, organization, and content of RIs by German PHAs.
methodsAs part of the PRO-OEGD project, representative data collection among all German PHAs was conducted between December 2023 and May 2024. Statistical analysis was performed using the chi-square, Fisher's, Mann-Whitney-, and Pearson-correlation tests.
resultsThe response rate was 66% (248 of 377 PHAs). Results show many similarities despite different federal structures, for example, with regard to rating of content and hospital departments being particularly relevant for IPC. Medical professionals, hygiene inspectors, and hygiene specialists are usually involved in RIs. Maximum care providers, more often than non-maximum care providers, are inspected several times a year. Mostly (90%), hospitals are informed of the RI in advance. Two thirds of PHAs use standardized checklists. Few PHAs (3%) perform a systematic evaluation of the RI results and give feedback to the hospital. DISCUSSION: Based on the results, a nationwide standardization of RIs using jointly agreed checklists is being pursued. Practical examples show that the use of checklists helps ensure efficient use of personnel resources before and during RIs. Standardized checklists facilitate the implementation of future digitalization initiatives while also enabling comparability of RI results.
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.