Although the result is not in the target area, the quality target is still considered to have been achieved. For more information, see "All information (click here)".
Duration of the operation during which the shock generator (defibrillator) is first used or the housing is replaced
Code ID
52131
Result (%)
Data protection
Evaluation through structured dialogue
The result is in the target area - the quality target is therefore considered to have been fully achieved. (R10)
Population
Data protection
Events observed
Data protection
Anticipated events
Data protection
Result trend compared with the previous reporting year
eingeschränkt/nicht vergleichbar
Comparison with the previous reporting year
eingeschränkt/nicht vergleichbar
National result (%)
91,85
Target range (reference range)
>= 60,00 %
Confidence interval nationwide (%)
91,53 - 92,16
Hospital confidence interval (%)
0,00 - 0,00
Reference infection
No
Type of value
QI
Relation to the procedure
DeQS
Reference to other QA results
Sorting
Risk-adjusted rate
Comments/explanations by the competent authority at national or state level
Comments/explanations by the hospital
Specialist note IQTIG
The reference range indicates the range in which the results of an indicator are assessed as normal. A facility with a result outside the reference range is initially noticeable in terms of calculation, which usually results in an analysis in the structured dialog. It should be noted that an indicator result outside the reference range is not synonymous with a poor quality of the facility in the quality aspect considered here. The deviation can also e.g. be traceable to incorrect documentation or to individual cases. Quality is assessed in the context of the structured dialogue with the institutions.
Various measurements during the operation showed that the shock generator?s (defibrillator?s) wiring was functioning properly
Code ID
52316
Result (%)
Data protection
Evaluation through structured dialogue
An evaluation is not possible because there were no patients in the hospital to whom this quality criterion could be applied. (N01)
Population
Data protection
Events observed
Data protection
Anticipated events
Data protection
Result trend compared with the previous reporting year
eingeschränkt/nicht vergleichbar
Comparison with the previous reporting year
eingeschränkt/nicht vergleichbar
National result (%)
96,17
Target range (reference range)
>= 90,00 %
Confidence interval nationwide (%)
96,02 - 96,31
Hospital confidence interval (%)
0,00 - 0,00
Reference infection
No
Type of value
QI
Relation to the procedure
DeQS
Reference to other QA results
Sorting
Risk-adjusted rate
Comments/explanations by the competent authority at national or state level
Comments/explanations by the hospital
Specialist note IQTIG
It should be noted that this computational result may not be influenced exclusively by the respective institution. So e.g. the severity of illness or concomitant illnesses of the patients have an influence on the result. This indicator is a so-called quality index. This means that several measurements are evaluated per treatment case and that not only cases with a defibrillator implantation but also cases with a revision, a system change or an explantation of the defibrillator are considered. The aim is to consider an increased number of measurements and thus to reduce the number of cases prevalence problem (Heller 2010). If the number of cases is low at the site level, there is a risk that computational abnormalities arise systematically (randomly) from a few individual cases. The reference range indicates the range in which the results of an indicator are assessed as normal. A facility with a result outside the reference range is initially noticeable in terms of calculation, which usually results in an analysis in the structured dialog. It should be noted that an indicator result outside the reference range is not synonymous with a poor quality of the facility in the quality aspect considered here. The deviation can also e.g. be traceable to incorrect documentation or to individual cases. Quality is assessed in the context of the structured dialogue with the institutions. Heller, G (2010): Quality assurance with routine data - current status and further development. Chapter 14. In: Klauber, J: Geraedts, M: Friedrich, J: Hospital Report 2010: Focus: Hospital care in crisis? Stuttgart: Schattauer, 239-254. ISBN: 978-3794527267.