Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Public Health 1/2021

01-02-2021 | Original Article

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

Authors: Jochen Schmitt, Olaf Schoffer, Felix Walther, Martin Roessler, Xina Grählert, Maria Eberlein-Gonska, Peter C. Scriba, Ralf Kuhlen

Published in: Journal of Public Health | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
go back to reference Bundesärztekammer (2011) Curriculum “ärztliches peer review” Bundesärztekammer (2011) Curriculum “ärztliches peer review”
go back to reference Dimick JB, Ryan AM (2014) Methods for evaluating changes in health care policy: the difference-in-differences approach. JAMA 312:2401–2402CrossRef Dimick JB, Ryan AM (2014) Methods for evaluating changes in health care policy: the difference-in-differences approach. JAMA 312:2401–2402CrossRef
go back to reference Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM (1998) Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care 36:8–27CrossRef Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM (1998) Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care 36:8–27CrossRef
go back to reference 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 CrossRefPubMed 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 CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Grol R (1994) Quality improvement by peer review in primary care: a practical guide. Qual Health Care 3:147–152CrossRef Grol R (1994) Quality improvement by peer review in primary care: a practical guide. Qual Health Care 3:147–152CrossRef
go back to reference 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 125–127 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 125–127
go back to reference 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:e59160CrossRef 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:e59160CrossRef
go back to reference Rink O (2012) Das IQM Peer Review Verfahren–Ergebnisse der Initiative Qualitätsmedizin. Z für Evidenz, Fortbild und Qual im Gesundheitsw 106:560–565CrossRef Rink O (2012) Das IQM Peer Review Verfahren–Ergebnisse der Initiative Qualitätsmedizin. Z für Evidenz, Fortbild und Qual im Gesundheitsw 106:560–565CrossRef
go back to reference Van Belle G, Fisher LD, Heagerty PJ, Lumley T (2004) Biostatistics: a methodology for the health sciences, 2nd edn. Wiley, HobokenCrossRef Van Belle G, Fisher LD, Heagerty PJ, Lumley T (2004) Biostatistics: a methodology for the health sciences, 2nd edn. Wiley, HobokenCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Effectiveness of the IQM peer review procedure to improve in-patient care—a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (IMPRESS): study design and baseline results
Authors
Jochen Schmitt
Olaf Schoffer
Felix Walther
Martin Roessler
Xina Grählert
Maria Eberlein-Gonska
Peter C. Scriba
Ralf Kuhlen
Publication date
01-02-2021
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Journal of Public Health / Issue 1/2021
Print ISSN: 2198-1833
Electronic ISSN: 1613-2238
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-019-01118-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Journal of Public Health 1/2021 Go to the issue