[Required Framework for the Collection of Real-life Data: An Example from University Eye Hospital Munich]. / Rahmenbedingungen zur Sammlung von "Real-Life"-Daten am Beispiel der Augenklinik der Universität München.

Background The importance of evaluating real-life data is constantly increasing. Currently available computer systems better allow for analyses of data, as more and more data is available in a digital form. Before a project for real-life data analyses is started, technical considerations and staff, legal, and data protection procedures need to be addressed. In this manuscript, experiences made at the University Eye Hospital in Munich will be shared. Materials and Methods Legal requirements, as found in laws and guidelines governing documentation and data privacy, are highlighted. Technical requirements for information technology infrastructure and software are defined. A survey conducted by the German Ophthalmological Society, among German eye hospitals investigating the current state of digitalization, was conducted. Also, staff requirements are outlined. Results A database comprising results of 330,801 patients was set up. It includes all diagnoses, procedures, clinical findings and results from diagnostic devices. This database was approved by the local data protection officer. In less than half of German eye hospitals (n = 21) that participated in the survey (n = 54), a complete electronic documentation is done. Fourteen institutions are completely paper-based, and the remainder of the hospitals used a mixed system. Conclusion In this work, we examined the framework that is required to develop a comprehensive database containing real-life data from clinics. In future, these databases will become increasingly important as more and more innovation are made in decision support systems. The base for this is comprehensive and well-curated databases.

[Actors in liver transplantation advocate greater transparency and systematic evaluations of transplant centres]. / Akteure der Lebertransplantation befürworten größere Transparenz und systematische Evaluationen der Transplantationszentren.

BACKGROUND: Following the introduction of the MELD score, the survival rates have worsened after liver transplantation (LTX) in Germany. Existing organ shortages, shorter survival rates after LTX, and failures in the liver allocation process provide true challenges. Facilitated by a structured questionnaire, the appropriate German liver transplantation actors were approached with regard to these challenges for the first time. The aim was to provide a balanced experts' view in an anonymous fashion thereby identifying areas for potential improvement. METHOD: Data collection was performed by a structured, standardised, anonymous survey of all LTX centres in Germany. RESULTS: We received 75 % replies of the questionnaires, 35 of 36 participants responded to more than 75 % of all questions. The following key points were highlighted. A minimum amount of LTX per centre was deemed important and monetary incentives must not exist. The ultimate goal of LTX is a prolongation of life and social as well as occupational reintegration. Quality management and transparent LTX registers are prerequisites for both adequate organ allocation and distribution of resources in order to achieve the best possible transplant outcomes. CONCLUSION: The German liver transplant experts consider transparency of organ allocation and systematic evaluation of the quality of transplant centres and the transplantation process itself to be mandatory, however, executed in a participatory way. A scoring system to facilitate the decision making process in order to predict the likelihood of satisfactory LTX outcome thereby circumventing some of the ethical and constitutional doubts would be highly appreciated.

Reporting of quality measures in gynecologic oncology programs at Prospective Payment System (PPS)-Exempt Cancer Hospitals: an early glimpse into a challenging initiative.

OBJECTIVE: The Affordable Care Act mandates the Prospective Payment System (PPS)-Exempt Cancer Hospitals Quality Reporting program. These 11 hospitals (which are paid fee-for-service rather than on a DRG system) began reporting measures (2 general safety, 2 breast, 1 colon) in 2013. Given this reporting mandate, we set out to determine whether the PPS-exempt gynecologic oncology programs could identify quality measures specific to the care of our patients. METHODS: A list of 12 quality measures specific to gynecologic oncology was created (from sources including the National Quality Forum and the SGO). Measures already in use were not included. The list was ranked by the gynecologic oncology program directors at the PPS-exempt hospitals. Descriptive statistics (including mean and SD for rankings) were utilized. RESULTS: Despite mandatory reporting of quality measures for PPS-exempt cancer hospitals, little consensus exists regarding specific gynecologic cancer measures. Documentation of debulking status, cancer survival, and offering minimally invasive surgery (for endometrial cancer) and intraperitoneal chemotherapy (for ovarian cancer) are important, but with widely variable responses (when ranked 1-12, standard deviations are 2-3). General issues regarding adherence to guidelines for the use of GCSF, documentation of functional status, and tracking of patient satisfaction scores were ranked the lowest. Three of the directors reported that their compensation is partially linked to quality outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variability in ranking of quality measures, and may relate to provider or institutional factors. Despite the mandatory reporting in PPS-exempt cancer hospitals, work remains to define gynecologic cancer quality measures.

[Amendment of the structural quality for inpatient rheumatology. A forward-looking concept]. / Neufassung der Strukturqualität der akut-stationären Rheumatologie. Ein zukunftsweisendes Projekt.

In 2010 a total of 9 guidelines on structural quality were endorsed by the Association of Rheumatology Clinics in Germany (VRA). These 9 structural criteria replace the regulations published in 2002 and were elaborated with the support of the German Rheumatology League. With guideline number 9 even the structural requirements for university hospitals are defined for the first time.Along with taking part in the quality project "Kobra" (continuous outcome benchmarking in rheumatology inpatient treatment) compliance with the new structural criteria constitutes a prerequisite for acquiring a quality certificate, which is awarded by an external institution.By this means the VRA sets the stage for its members to be prepared for future challenges and quality competition among hospitals. Furthermore, the provision of a high quality treatment for chronically diseased patients in rheumatology clinics will be effectively supported.

[Analysis of costs and profits of ambulatory care of Marfan patients after initiation of a novel German legal directive (116 b SGB V)]. / Analyse der Erlössituation bei der ambulanten Behandlung nach 116 b SGB V am Beispiel des Marfan-Syndroms.

BACKGROUND: The Marfan syndrome is a typical rare disease with multiorgan involvement and the need for specialized interdisciplinary medical care. A novel German legal directive according to section sign 116 b of the Social Statutes Book V (116 b SGB V) improves options for reimbursement and thus encourages specialized hospitals to provide ambulatory care for rare diseases such as Marfan syndrome. The authors provide the first economic analysis of section sign 116 b in a German Marfan center. METHODS: The costs were assessed in 184 cases with Marfan syndrome receiving medical care in the Hamburg Marfan Clinic. The authors assessed the financial profit both according to payments received from invoices established according to the 116 b directive [reimbursement (116b)] and from calculations according to section sign 117 SGB V [reimbursement (117)]. RESULTS: A total of 117 patients traveled to the Marfan clinic (64%) < 50 km, 27 patients (15%) between >or= 50 and 100 km. The total costs for ambulatory care were 71,606.28 Euro. The reimbursement (116b) was 55,549.87 Euro and the reimbursement (117) was 11,776.00 Euro. CONCLUSION: Many patients accept long distances of traveling to receive specialized ambulatory medical care. However, for optimal patient management specialized centers need to cooperate intensively with local health care providers. The novel legal directive according to section sign 116 b has significantly improved reimbursement for Marfan centers and allows for improving the quality of medical care.

Aligning physician and hospital incentives: the approach at hospital for special surgery.

Healthcare administrators and physicians alike are navigating an increasingly complex and highly regulated healthcare environment. Unlike in the past, institutions now require strong collaboration among physician and administrative leaders. As providers and managers are trained and work differently, new methods are needed to provide the infrastructure and resources necessary to create, nurture, and sustain alignment between them. We describe four initiatives by administrators and physicians at Hospital for Special Surgery to work together in mutually beneficial relationships that help us achieve the highest level of patient care, satisfaction and safety. These initiatives include improving management efficiency through an orthopaedic service line structure, helping individual physicians grow their practices through the demand-office-operating room initiative of the Physicians Service Department, controlling costs through the supply effectiveness policy, and promoting teamwork in innovation through the technology transfer program.

Orthopedic-driven ambulatory surgery centers and specialty hospitals--a physician and hospital perspective.

This article provides an overview of several issues facing the orthopedic-driven ambulatory surgery center and specialty hospital development industry. The article specifically then reviews certain key business drivers to industry growth, examines key risks related to ASC and specialty hospital projects, and provides a brief review of certain legal issues related to the same.

[Rheumatologic treatment in the G-DRG system]. / Rheumatologie im G-DRG-Fallpauschalensystem.

On June 27 2000, the German Self-Administration and lately the German Ministry of Health set the general conditions for a new reimbursement system for the inpatient hospital sector which is based nearly exclusively on lump-sum payments. The Association of Acute Rheumatology Hospitals (VRA) and the DRG-Research-Group, Münster University Hospital, conducted a multi-center trial which included 7266 cases from 22 different hospitals. The data were used to analyze how well the not yet German healthcare adjusted G-DRG system (version 1.0) accounts for rheumatologic diagnostics and treatment as well as problems of specialized hospitals. 7 Adjacent-DRGs covered 91% of all cases, 68% of all cases were grouped into only two different Adjacent-DRGs (169 Bone Diseases and Specific Arthropathies and 166 Other Connective Tissue Disorders). Groups with different complexity which are not appropriately covered by the existing G-DRG system could be identified. The data further revealed a systematically longer length of stay in rheumatology clinics opposed to the average length of stay in the data used for calculating the G-DRGs, due to different structures and procedures of the complex rheumatologic treatment. The results strongly supported the assumption that an accurate reimbursement of rheumatologic cases in the current G-DRG system 1.0 would not have been possible. Adaptations made in the new G-DRG Version 2004 can only partly solve these problems, despite an improved construction of the DRGs. In order to guarantee an appropriate reimbursement of rheumatology clinics from 2005 on, the G-DRG system must be adapted to specific rheumatological pathways and/or alternative or additional reimbursement systems have to be found.

Health care providers and facilities issue brief: health facilities: year end report-2004.

American health facilities are said to provide the best health care in the world. But hospitals are continually challenged by staff shortages, patient safety and medical errors, uninsured patients, and the growth of specialty hospitals. This issue brief provides an analysis of the issues that challenge hospitals' ability to provide quality care for patients. Moreover, the issue brief defines each issue, including staffing mandates, patient safety and medical errors, emergency hospitals, billing practices, and niche and specialty hospitals, outlines the arguments for and against each issue, and finally details and characterizes state legislative activity in regard to each issue. As of 2002, the most recent data available from the American Hospital Association (AHA), there were 5,794 registered hospitals in the United States. The AHA also states that there are 4,927 community hospitals, which includes non-governmental non-profit hospitals, investor-owned (for-profit) hospitals, and hospitals owned by state and local governments. The AHA defines community hospitals as all non-federal, short-term general, and other specialty hospitals. Specialty hospitals include obstetrics and gynecology, rehabilitation, orthopedic, and other individually described specialty services. Statistics provided by the AHA indicate that the number of rural and urban community hospitals is approximately equal--2,178 rural hospitals compared to 2,749 urban hospitals. However, this statistic alone does not address the quality of care in urban and rural settings. It does not address the total expenditures in rural and urban hospitals, nor does it address staffing levels.

Focused factories? Physician-owned specialty facilities.

Using data from Round Four of the Community Tracking Study site visits, this paper describes the recent rapid increase in physician-owned specialty hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers, reasons for this increase, possible impacts, and potential policy options. These facilities could lead to excess capacity, provision of unnecessary services, and lower quality because of decreased volume at some facilities. They also could reduce community hospitals' net revenue and thus their ability to subsidize socially necessary but unprofitable services. But regulatory intervention should be cautious, because data on impact are inconclusive, and these facilities could have the potential to function as "focused factories" that improve quality and reduce costs.