[Further Development of Maturity Levels of Quality and Risk Management System at the University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein]. / Weiterentwicklung der Reifegrade des Qualitäts ­ und Risikomanagementsystems am Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein.

INTRODUCTION: Following upon our publication "Maturity Levels of Quality and Risk Management at the University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein" in 2018, we present the further development of the maturity model. Quality and risk management in hospitals is not only required by law but also plays a significant role in an optimized patient- and process-oriented health care. METHODS: A questionnaire-based self-assessment was carried out by 46 clinical units of the UKSH (location Kiel and Lübeck) for the analysis of nine quality criteria overall. Four of these criteria (quality assurance (QS), critical incident reporting system (CIRS), complaint management (BM) and process management (PM)) were already analysed in 2016 and were extended to the five new aspects, namely audits and on-site inspections, responsibilities, morbidity and mortality conferences, hygiene training and surgical safety checklist. Every quality item was graded into four categories from "A" (fully implemented) to "D" (not implemented at all). RESULTS: The comparison of the results for quality criteria QS, CIRS, BM, PM and the overall maturity level between 2016 and 2020 demonstrated statistically significant improvements in 2020 concerning the criteria QS (p=0.013), CIRS (p=0.026), PM (p=0.000) and the overall maturity levels (p=0.019). The criteria BM did not show any statistically significant improvement. The five newly added quality criteria demonstrated maturity levels "A" (fully implemented) and "B" (largely implemented) the following: audits and on-site inspections (100%), responsibilities (95.6%), morbidity and mortality conferences (65.2%), hygiene training (95.6%), and surgical safety checklist (100%). CONCLUSION: An integrated quality and risk management has already been a firm element of UKSH for years. Nevertheless, review of effectiveness of the initiated targeted measures is still a challenge. This is the reason why it is necessary to develop effective and resource-saving approaches for the evaluation of measures and the identification of potential for improvement. The recognised potential for improvement should be risk-prioritized and completely exploited using sustainable measures. Following this principle, we designed a qualitative model of maturity levels for the evaluation of our quality and risk management system at the UKSH in 2016, whose further development we demonstrate here.

[Maturity Levels of Quality and Risk Management at the University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein]. / Reifegrade des Qualitäts- und Risikomanagementsystems am Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein.

INTRODUCTION: Quality and risk management in hospitals are not only required by law but also for an optimal patient-centered and process-optimized patient care. To evaluate the maturity levels of quality and risk management at the University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), a structured analytical tool was developed for easy and efficient application. METHODS: Four criteria concerning quality management - quality assurance (QS), critical incident reporting system (CIRS), complaint management (BM) and process management (PM) - were evaluated with a structured questionnaire. Self-assessment and external assessment were performed to classify the maturity levels at the UKSH (location Kiel and Lübeck). Every quality item was graded into four categories from "A" (fully implemented) to "D" (not implemented at all). First of all, an external assessment was initiated by the head of the department of quality and risk management. Thereafter, a self-assessment was performed by 46 clinical units of the UKSH. Discrepancies were resolved in a collegial dialogue. Based on these data, overall maturity levels were obtained for every clinical unit. RESULTS: The overall maturity level "A" was reached by three out of 46 (6.5%) clinical units. No unit was graded with maturity level "D". 50% out of all units reached level "B" and 43.5% level "C". The distribution of the four different quality criteria revealed a good implementation of complaint management (maturity levels "A" and "B" in 78.3%), whereas the levels for CIRS were "C" and "D" in 73.9%. Quality assurance and process management showed quite similar distributions for the levels of maturity "B" and "C" (87% QS; 91% PM). DISCUSSION: The structured analytical tool revealed maturity levels of 46 clinical units of the UKSH and defined the maturity levels of four relevant quality criteria (QS, CIRS, BM, PM). As a consequence, extensive procedures were implemented to raise the standard of quality and risk management. In future, maturity levels will be reevaluated every two years. This qualitative maturity level model enables in a simple and efficient way precise statements concerning presence, manifestation and development of quality and risk management.