Open Access Research article

Mandatory quality reports in Germany from the hospitals’ point of view: a cross-sectional observational study

Silke Auras1*, Werner de Cruppé1, Karl Blum2 and Max Geraedts1

Author Affiliations

1 Institute for Health Systems Research, Witten/Herdecke University, Alfred-Herrhausen-Str. 50, Witten, 58448, Germany

2 German Hospital Institute® (DKI®), Hansaallee 201, Duesseldorf, 40549, Germany

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Health Services Research 2012, 12:378  doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-378

Published: 31 October 2012

Abstract

Background

Public reporting of hospital quality is to enable providers, patients and the public to make comparisons regarding the quality of care and thus contribute to informed decisions. It stimulates quality improvement activities in hospitals and thus positively impacts treatment results. Hospitals often use publicly reported data for further internal or external purposes.

As of 2005, German hospitals are obliged to publish structured quality reports (QR) every two years. This gives them the opportunity to demonstrate their performance by number, type and quality in a transparent way. However, it constitutes a major burden to hospitals to generate and publish data required, and it is yet unknown if hospitals feel adequately represented and at the same time consider the effort appropriate.

This study assesses hospital leaders’ judgement about the capability of QR to put legally defined aims effectively and efficiently into practice. It also explores the additional purposes hospitals use their QR for.

Methods

In a cross-sectional observational study, a representative random sample out of 2,064 German hospitals (N=748) was invited to assess QR via questionnaire; 333 hospitals participated. We recorded the suitability of QR for representing number, type and quality of services, the adequacy of cost and benefits (6-level Likert scales) and additional purposes QR are used for (free text question). For representation purposes, the net sample was weighted for hospital size and hospital ownership (direct standardization). Data was analyzed descriptively and using inferential statistics (chi-2 test) or for the purpose of generating hypotheses.

Results

German hospitals rated the QR as suitable to represent the number of services but less so for the type and quality of services. The cost-benefit ratio was seen as inadequate. There were no significant differences between hospitals of different size or ownership.

Public hospitals additionally used their reports for mostly internal purposes (e.g. comparison with competitors, quality management) whereas private ones used them externally (e.g. communication, marketing) (p=0.024, chi-2 test, hypotheses-generating level).

Conclusions

German hospitals consider the mandatory QR as only partially capable to put the legally defined aims effectively and efficiently into practice. In order for public reporting to achieve its potentially positive effects, the QR must be more closely aligned to the needs of hospitals.

Keywords:
Public reporting; Hospitals; Germany