Die Dokumentationsrate wurde krankenhausbezogen berechnet. Die vermeintliche Überdokumentation entstand durch einen Softwarefehler in der Sollstatistik
Summary result:
In 2 of 2 quality characteristics, the quality objective was achieved.
No assessment is possible for any quality characteristic
Number of patients treated: 291
Quality objective achieved Quality objective not achieved
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)".
This is how often the chest wall artery was used as a bypass in a bypass operation
Code ID
352000
Result (%)
91,57
Evaluation through structured dialogue
The result is in the target area - the quality target is therefore considered to have been fully achieved. (R10)
Population
415
Events observed
380
Anticipated events
0,00
Result trend compared with the previous reporting year
unverändert
Comparison with the previous reporting year
unverändert
National result (%)
95,62
Target range (reference range)
>= 90,00 %
Confidence interval nationwide (%)
95,35 - 95,87
Hospital confidence interval (%)
88,50 - 93,87
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 results at which a facility can be assumed to provide good quality of care, although deviations are possible. The reference range thus establishes a benchmark for the evaluation of facilities. A result outside the reference range is initially considered conspicuous. This usually entails an analysis by means of a statement procedure. It should be noted that a quality result outside the reference range is not synonymous with a lack of quality of the facility in the quality aspect considered here. The deviation can also be due, for example, to incorrect documentation, medical specificity of the patient collective or individual cases. The evaluation of quality is carried out within the framework of the defined procedure in the comments procedure. More detailed information on reference areas can be found at the following link: https://iqtig.org/das-iqtig/grundlagen/methodische-grundlagen.
How rarely patients die in hospital as a result of urgent bypass surgery
Code ID
352006
Result (%)
3,33
Evaluation through structured dialogue
Population
300
Events observed
10
Anticipated events
0,00
Result trend compared with the previous reporting year
Comparison with the previous reporting year
National result (%)
1,77
Target range (reference range)
Confidence interval nationwide (%)
1,60 - 1,96
Hospital confidence interval (%)
1,82 - 6,03
Reference infection
No
Type of value
TKEZ
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
Although indicators represent quality, their results do not allow a direct assessment of the quality of care (due to the lack of a reference range) and they are not suitable for direct quality comparisons (due to the lack of mathematical adjustment). However, they are usually published in direct connection with a quality indicator, the results of which are supplemented by the indicator values (imputed and supplementary indicators). They thus contribute to an increase in the comprehensibility of the quality results. The transparency indicators, which are to be distinguished from these, represent aspects of care for which there are no quality indicators, but which are nevertheless important for presenting the quality of care. More detailed information on ratios can be found at the following link: https://iqtig.org/veroeffentlichungen/kennzahlenkonzept.
Ratio of actual to expected number of patients died in hospital as a result of bypass surgery
Code ID
352007
Result
1,29
Evaluation through structured dialogue
The result is in the target area - the quality target is therefore considered to have been fully achieved. (R10)
Population
415
Events observed
31
Anticipated events
24,08
Result trend compared with the previous reporting year
unverändert
Comparison with the previous reporting year
unverändert
National result
0,99
Target range (reference range)
<= 2,33 (95. Perzentil)
Confidence interval nationwide
0,92 - 1,06
Hospital confidence interval
0,92 - 1,79
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
Risk adjustment aims to compensate for the different patient structure in different facilities. Ideally, this leads to a fair comparison of the different facilities, since patients have individual risk factors (such as concomitant diseases) that systematically influence the quality outcome, without it being possible to attribute responsibility for e.g. resulting more frequent complications to one facility. With the help of risk adjustment, the quality outcome of, for example, an institution with many high-risk cases can be statistically compared more fairly with the quality outcome of an institution with many low-risk cases. More information on risk adjustment can be found at the following link: https://iqtig.org/das-iqtig/grundlagen/methodische-grundlagen. The reference range indicates the results at which a facility can be assumed to provide good quality of care, although deviations are possible. The reference range thus establishes a benchmark for the evaluation of facilities. A result outside the reference range is initially considered suspicious. This usually entails an analysis by means of a statement procedure. It should be noted that a quality result outside the reference range is not synonymous with a lack of quality of the facility in the quality aspect considered here. The deviation can also be due, for example, to incorrect documentation, medical specificity of the patient collective or individual cases. The evaluation of quality is carried out within the framework of the defined procedure in the comments procedure. More detailed information on reference areas can be found at the following link: https://iqtig.org/das-iqtig/grundlagen/methodische-grundlagen.