Advertisement

Effectiveness of the IQM peer review procedure to improve in-patient care—a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (IMPRESS): study design and baseline results

  • Jochen Schmitt
  • Olaf Schoffer
  • Felix Walther
  • Martin RoesslerEmail author
  • Xina Grählert
  • Maria Eberlein-Gonska
  • Peter C. Scriba
  • Ralf Kuhlen
Original Article
  • 25 Downloads

Abstract

Aim

The primary objective of the IMPRESS study is to assess the causal effects of the IQM peer review on mortality in patients ventilated > 24 h. Secondary analyses are conducted for mortality in patients with myocardial infarction, stroke, COPD, pneumonia, and the procedural provision of a colorectal resection. This article provides a description of the study design and presents baseline results.

Subjects and methods

Descriptive statistics for 231 included hospitals and patient characteristics.

Results

Due to randomization, the treatment/control group hospitals were similar with respect to the mortality in patients ventilated > 24 h and other patient and hospital characteristics at baseline. Mortality was highest (lowest) in patients ventilated > 24 h (with colorectal resection).

Conclusion

The IMPRESS study provides a unique opportunity to assess the impact of the IQM peer review on the mortality in patients ventilated > 24 h. The secondary, exploratory, and qualitative analyses are expected to provide insights on determinants of in-hospital mortality, structure and process quality, and the robustness of different approaches to risk adjustment of quality indicators.

Keywords

Peer review Ventilation Hospital mortality Cluster-randomized controlled trial 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for the support of Dr. Claudia Winkelmair and the IQM office. We also thank the participating IQM hospitals and the peer reviewers.

Funding

The IMPRESS study is funded by the Innovation Fund of the Joint Federal Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, G-BA), Germany. Funding number: 01VSF16013.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Peter C. Scriba and Ralf Kuhlen are members of the scientific advisory board of the Initiative Qualitätsmedizin e.V. (IQM). Maria Eberlein-Gonska serves as an external expert for IQM. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the ethics committee of the TU Dresden. Written consent of participation was obtained from all included IQM member hospitals.

Supplementary material

10389_2019_1118_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (11 kb)
ESM 1 (XLSX 10 kb)

References

  1. BBSR (2014) Laufende Raumbeobachtung - Raumabgrenzungen. www.bbsr.bund.de/BBSR/DE/Raumbeobachtung/Raumabgrenzungen/StadtLandRegionen_Typen/StadtLandRegionen_Typen.html. Accessed 11 Mar 2019
  2. Bundesärztekammer (2011) Curriculum “ärztliches peer review”Google Scholar
  3. Dimick JB, Ryan AM (2014) Methods for evaluating changes in health care policy: the difference-in-differences approach. JAMA 312:2401–2402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM (1998) Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care 36:8–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eran O, Novack V, Gilutz H, Zahger D (2011) Comparison of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction, global registry of acute coronary events, and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II risk scores in patients with acute myocardial infarction who require mechanical ventilation for more than 24 hours. Am J Cardiol 107:343–346.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.09.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fernandez-Zamora MD et al (2018) Prolonged mechanical ventilation as a predictor of mortality after cardiac surgery. Respir Care 63:550–557.  https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.04915 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gillespie DJ, Marsh HMM, Divertie MB, Meadows JA (1986) Clinical outcome of respiratory-failure in patients requiring prolonged (greater-than 24 hours) mechanical ventilation. Chest 90:364–369.  https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.90.3.364 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grol R (1994) Quality improvement by peer review in primary care: a practical guide. Qual Health Care 3:147–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. IQM (2019a) Qualitätsergebnisse. www.initiative-qualitaetsmedizin.de/qualitatsmethodik/qualitatsergebnisse/. Accessed 11 Mar 2019
  10. IQM (2019b) Unsere neuen Mitglieder. www.initiative-qualitaetsmedizin.de/home/unsere-neuen-mitglieder/. Accessed 11 Mar 2019
  11. Krahwinkel W et al (2016) The effect of peer review on mortality rates. Int J Qual Health Care 28:594–600.  https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzw072 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Krishnan JA, Moore D, Robeson C, Rand CS, Fessler HE (2004) A prospective, controlled trial of a protocol-based strategy to discontinue mechanical ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 169:673–678.  https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.200306-7610C CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mansky T, Nimptsch U, Cools A, Hellerhoff F (2016) G-IQI - German inpatient quality indicators version 5.0. Band 2. Definitionshandbuch für das Datenjahr 2016 www.seqmgw.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/fg241/GIQI_V50_Band_1.pdf. Accessed 11 March 2019
  14. Nimptsch U, Mansky T (2013) Quality measurement combined with peer review improved German in-hospital mortality rates for four diseases. Health Aff 32:1616–1623.  https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0925 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Petzold T, Tesch F, Eberlein-Gonska M, Schmitt J (2017) Ermittlung geeigneter Kriterien als Entscheidungshilfe für die zielgerichtete Auslösung des IQM Peer Review Verfahrens. In: Eberlein-Gonska M, Martin J, Zacher J (eds) Handbuch IQM. Konsequent transparent - Qualität mit Routinedaten. Medizinisch Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft, Berlin, pp 125–127Google Scholar
  16. Pouw ME, Peelen LM, Lingsma HF, Pieter D, Steyerberg E, Kalkman CJ, Moons KG (2013) Hospital standardized mortality ratio: consequences of adjusting hospital mortality with indirect standardization. PLoS One 8:e59160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rink O (2012) Das IQM Peer Review Verfahren–Ergebnisse der Initiative Qualitätsmedizin. Z für Evidenz, Fortbild und Qual im Gesundheitsw 106:560–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Van Belle G, Fisher LD, Heagerty PJ, Lumley T (2004) Biostatistics: a methodology for the health sciences, 2nd edn. Wiley, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Walther F, Schoffer O, Schmitt J (2018) Effectiveness of a collegial consultation procedure to improve in-patient care—a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial. ISRCTN.  https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN10188560 . Accessed 11 Mar 2019

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zentrum für Evidenzbasierte GesundheitsversorgungUniversitätsklinikum und Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus an der Technischen Universität DresdenDresdenGermany
  2. 2.Zentralbereich Qualitäts- und Medizinisches RisikomanagementUniversitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus DresdenDresdenGermany
  3. 3.Koordinierungszentrum für Klinische StudienMedizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus der Technischen Universität DresdenDresdenGermany
  4. 4.IQM Initiative Qualitätsmedizin e.V.BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations