Dennis Boywitt , Maximilian Kähler , Sven Bungard , Michael Höhle , Johannes Rauh
{"title":"[德国法定质量保证计划中类似同行评审的对话的可靠性]。","authors":"Dennis Boywitt , Maximilian Kähler , Sven Bungard , Michael Höhle , Johannes Rauh","doi":"10.1016/j.zefq.2024.02.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Quality measurement in the German statutory program for quality in health care follows a two-step process. For selected areas of health care, quality is measured via performance indicators (first step). Providers failing to achieve benchmarks in these indicators subsequently enter into a peer review process (second step) and are asked by the respective regional authority to provide a written statement regarding their indicator results. The statements are then evaluated by peers, with the goal to assess the provider’s quality of care. In the past, similar peer review-based approaches to the measurement of health care quality in other countries have shown a tendency to lack reliability. So far, the reliability of this component of the German statutory program for quality in health care has not been investigated.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>Using logistic regression models, the influence of the respective regional authority on the peer review component of health care quality measurement in Germany was investigated using three exemplary indicators and data from 2016.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Both the probability that providers are asked to provide a statement as well as the results produced by the peer review process significantly depend on the regional authority in charge. This dependence cannot be fully explained by differences in the indicator results or by differences in case volume.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The present results are in accordance with earlier findings, which show low reliability for peer review-based approaches to quality measurement. Thus, different results produced by the peer review component of the quality measurement process may in part be due to differences in the way the review process is conducted. This heterogeneity among the regional authorities limits the reliability of this process. In order to increase reliability, the peer review process should be standardized to a higher degree, with clear review criteria, and the peers should undergo comprehensive training for the review process. Alternatively, the future peer review component could be adapted to focus rather on identification of improvement strategies than on reliable provider comparisons.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliabilität des Strukturierten Dialogs in der gesetzlich verpflichtenden Qualitätssicherung\",\"authors\":\"Dennis Boywitt , Maximilian Kähler , Sven Bungard , Michael Höhle , Johannes Rauh\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.zefq.2024.02.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Quality measurement in the German statutory program for quality in health care follows a two-step process. For selected areas of health care, quality is measured via performance indicators (first step). Providers failing to achieve benchmarks in these indicators subsequently enter into a peer review process (second step) and are asked by the respective regional authority to provide a written statement regarding their indicator results. The statements are then evaluated by peers, with the goal to assess the provider’s quality of care. In the past, similar peer review-based approaches to the measurement of health care quality in other countries have shown a tendency to lack reliability. So far, the reliability of this component of the German statutory program for quality in health care has not been investigated.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>Using logistic regression models, the influence of the respective regional authority on the peer review component of health care quality measurement in Germany was investigated using three exemplary indicators and data from 2016.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Both the probability that providers are asked to provide a statement as well as the results produced by the peer review process significantly depend on the regional authority in charge. This dependence cannot be fully explained by differences in the indicator results or by differences in case volume.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The present results are in accordance with earlier findings, which show low reliability for peer review-based approaches to quality measurement. Thus, different results produced by the peer review component of the quality measurement process may in part be due to differences in the way the review process is conducted. This heterogeneity among the regional authorities limits the reliability of this process. In order to increase reliability, the peer review process should be standardized to a higher degree, with clear review criteria, and the peers should undergo comprehensive training for the review process. Alternatively, the future peer review component could be adapted to focus rather on identification of improvement strategies than on reliable provider comparisons.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1865921724000333\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1865921724000333","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Reliabilität des Strukturierten Dialogs in der gesetzlich verpflichtenden Qualitätssicherung
Background
Quality measurement in the German statutory program for quality in health care follows a two-step process. For selected areas of health care, quality is measured via performance indicators (first step). Providers failing to achieve benchmarks in these indicators subsequently enter into a peer review process (second step) and are asked by the respective regional authority to provide a written statement regarding their indicator results. The statements are then evaluated by peers, with the goal to assess the provider’s quality of care. In the past, similar peer review-based approaches to the measurement of health care quality in other countries have shown a tendency to lack reliability. So far, the reliability of this component of the German statutory program for quality in health care has not been investigated.
Method
Using logistic regression models, the influence of the respective regional authority on the peer review component of health care quality measurement in Germany was investigated using three exemplary indicators and data from 2016.
Results
Both the probability that providers are asked to provide a statement as well as the results produced by the peer review process significantly depend on the regional authority in charge. This dependence cannot be fully explained by differences in the indicator results or by differences in case volume.
Conclusions
The present results are in accordance with earlier findings, which show low reliability for peer review-based approaches to quality measurement. Thus, different results produced by the peer review component of the quality measurement process may in part be due to differences in the way the review process is conducted. This heterogeneity among the regional authorities limits the reliability of this process. In order to increase reliability, the peer review process should be standardized to a higher degree, with clear review criteria, and the peers should undergo comprehensive training for the review process. Alternatively, the future peer review component could be adapted to focus rather on identification of improvement strategies than on reliable provider comparisons.
期刊介绍：
Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance.
Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
