München Klinik Schwabing, München Klinik gGmbH

Quality results

Treatment sector: Pacemaker: unit change (HSMDEF-HSM-AGGW)

Information about this treatment area (documentation)

Designation	Herzschrittmacher - Aggregatwechsel
Shortcut	09/2
Number of cases	6
Documentation rate	100 %

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: 6

Quality objective achieved
Quality objective not achieved

The results in detail

Show national result

Quality criterion

Hospital result
and target area

Quality objective
achieved?

All information

This is how rarely complications occurred during pacemaker aggregate replacement (other than malfunction or displacement of probes: including wound infections)

Hospital: 0,00 %

Target area: at most 2,30 %

Quality objective achieved

Click here

The functionality of the pacemaker?s wires was checked during the operation using various measurements

Hospital: 100,00 %

Target area: at least 95,00 %

Quality objective achieved

Click here

Code ID	111801
Result (%)	0,00
Evaluation through structured dialogue	The result is in the target area - the quality target is therefore considered to have been fully achieved. (R10)
Population	6
Events observed	0
Anticipated events	0,00
Result trend compared with the previous reporting year	eingeschränkt/nicht vergleichbar
Comparison with the previous reporting year	unverändert
National result (%)	0,18
Target range (reference range)	<= 2,30 %
Confidence interval nationwide (%)	0,12 - 0,26
Hospital confidence interval (%)	0,00 - 39,03
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 sets a benchmark for the assessment 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 faulty documentation, medical specificity of the patient collective or individual cases. The assessment of quality is carried out within the framework of the defined procedure in the comments procedure. More information on reference areas can be found at the following link: https://iqtig.org/das-iqtig/grundlagen/methodische-grundlagen.

Code ID	52307
Result (%)	100,00
Evaluation through structured dialogue	The result is in the target area - the quality target is therefore considered to have been fully achieved. (R10)
Population	22
Events observed	22
Anticipated events	0,00
Result trend compared with the previous reporting year	eingeschränkt/nicht vergleichbar
Comparison with the previous reporting year	unverändert
National result (%)	98,43
Target range (reference range)	>= 95,00 %
Confidence interval nationwide (%)	98,34 - 98,53
Hospital confidence interval (%)	85,13 - 100,00
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 results at which a facility can be assumed to provide good quality of care, although deviations are possible. The reference range thus sets a benchmark for the assessment 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 faulty documentation, medical specificity of the patient collective or individual cases. The assessment of quality is carried out within the framework of the defined procedure in the comments procedure. Further information on reference ranges can be found under the following link: https://iqtig.org/das-iqtig/grundlagen/methodische-grundlagen. The choice of system for defibrillator implantation is assessed according to the current guidelines on pacemaker and cardiac resynchronisation therapy, on the diagnosis and treatment of heart failure, and on the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death of the European Society of Cardiology (Brignole et al. 2013, Glikson et al. 2021, McDonagh 2021, Priori et al. 2015). In individual cases, there may be justified deviations from the guidelines if defibrillators are implanted, e.g. as part of studies or when testing new procedures. - Brignole, M: Auricchio, A: Baron-Esquivias, G: Bordachar, P: Boriani, G: Breithardt, O-A: et al. (2013): 2013 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Eu ropean Heart Journal 34(29): 2281-2329. DOI: 10.1093/eu rheartj/eht150. - Glikson, M: Nielsen, JC: Kronborg, MB: Michowitz, Y: Auric chio, A: Barbash, IM: et al. (2021): 2021 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Euro pean Heart Journal 42(35): 3427-3520. DOI: 10.1093/eurhe artj/ehab364. - McDonagh, TA: Metra, M: Adamo, M: Gardner, RS: Baum bach, A: Böhm, M: et al. (2021): 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. European Heart Journal 42(36): 3599-3726. DOI: 10.1093/eu rheartj/ehab368. - Priori, SG: Blomström-Lundqvist, C: Mazzanti, A: Blom, N: Borggrefe, M: Camm, J: et al. (2015): 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias.