Franziskus Hospital Bielefeld

Quality results

Treatment sector: Femoral neck fracture: surgery as a result of a fracture with fixation of the broken bone parts by a metal connection (HGV-OSFRAK) Explanation

Information about this treatment area (documentation)

Designation	Hüftgelenknahe Femurfraktur mit osteosynthetischer Versorgung
Shortcut	17/1
Number of cases	132
Documentation rate	103.79 %
Hospital comment	Die Dokumentationsrate wurde krankenhausbezogen berechnet.

Summary result:

In 5 of 5 quality characteristics, the quality objective was achieved.
No assessment is possible for any quality characteristic

Number of patients treated: 132

Quality objective achieved
Quality objective not achieved

The results in detail

Hide national result

Quality criterion

Hospital result
and target area

Quality objective
achieved?

All information

This is how rarely the waiting time for femoral neck surgery with screws/plates was longer than recommended

National result: 9,83 %
Hospital: 7,69 %

Target area: at most 15,00 %

Quality objective achieved

Click here

This is how often preventive measures were trained with patients after surgery to avoid another fall

National result: 97,35 %
Hospital: 97,96 %

Target area: at least 90,00 %

Quality objective achieved

Click here

Ratio of the actual number to the previously expected number of patients who could not walk 50 metres when discharged from hospital (individual risks of the patients were taken into account)

National result: 1,02
Hospital: 1,49

Target area: at most 2,22

Quality objective achieved

Click here

This is how rarely complications (e.g. post-operative bleeding, implant defects and wound infections) directly related to the operation occured (the fractured bone parts were fixed using a metal splice)

National result: 1,89 %
Hospital: Data protection

No information due to data protection

Target area: at most 6,35 %

Quality objective achieved

Click here

Ratio of the actual number to the previously expected number of patients with complications (e.g. urinary tract infections, pneumonia or thromboses) that are only indirectly related to the operation (the fractured bone parts are fixed by a metal splice)

National result: 1,03
Hospital: 0,93

Target area: at most 2,42

Quality objective achieved

Click here

Ratio of the actual number to the previously expected number of patients who died during their hospital stay (the individual risks of the patients were taken into account)

National result: 1,07
Hospital: 0,53

as rarely as possible

Evaluation is not available

Click here

Code ID	54030
Result (%)	7,69
Evaluation through structured dialogue	The result is in the target area - the quality target is therefore considered to have been fully achieved. (R10)
Population	52
Events observed	4
Anticipated events	0,00
Result trend compared with the previous reporting year	eingeschränkt/nicht vergleichbar
Comparison with the previous reporting year	eingeschränkt/nicht vergleichbar
National result (%)	9,83
Target range (reference range)	<= 15,00 %
Confidence interval nationwide (%)	9,60 - 10,06
Hospital confidence interval (%)	3,03 - 18,17
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 range in which the results of an indicator are assessed as normal. A facility with a result outside the reference range is initially noticeable in terms of calculation, which usually results in an analysis in the structured dialog. It should be noted that an indicator result outside the reference range is not synonymous with a poor quality of the facility in the quality aspect considered here. The deviation can also e.g. be traceable to incorrect documentation or to individual cases. Quality is assessed in the context of the structured dialogue with the institutions. The results of this quality indicator can only be compared with the previous year's results to a limited extent due to adjustments to the calculation rule of the indicator. Further information on the adjustments made can be found in the description of the quality indicators at the following link: https://iqtig.org/qs-verfahren/.

Code ID	54050
Result (%)	97,96
Evaluation through structured dialogue	The result is in the target area - the quality target is therefore considered to have been fully achieved. (R10)
Population	49
Events observed	48
Anticipated events	0,00
Result trend compared with the previous reporting year	eingeschränkt/nicht vergleichbar
Comparison with the previous reporting year	eingeschränkt/nicht vergleichbar
National result (%)	97,35
Target range (reference range)	>= 90,00 %
Confidence interval nationwide (%)	97,22 - 97,48
Hospital confidence interval (%)	89,31 - 99,64
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	54033
Result	1,49
Evaluation through structured dialogue	The result is in the target area - the quality target is therefore considered to have been fully achieved. (R10)
Population	42
Events observed	13
Anticipated events	8,70
Result trend compared with the previous reporting year	eingeschränkt/nicht vergleichbar
Comparison with the previous reporting year	eingeschränkt/nicht vergleichbar
National result	1,02
Target range (reference range)	<= 2,22 (95. Perzentil)
Confidence interval nationwide	1,00 - 1,04
Hospital confidence interval	0,92 - 2,22
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 This indicator is a risk-adjusted indicator. A risk adjustment compensates for the different composition of the patient groups from different institutions. This leads to a fairer comparison, since there are patient-related risk factors (such as comorbidities) that systematically influence the indicator result without an institution being responsible for e.g. B. the following more frequent complications can be attributed. For example, the indicator result of a facility with many high-risk cases can be compared more statistically with the result of a facility with many low-risk cases. The risk factors are compiled from patient characteristics that were classified as risk-relevant as part of the development of quality indicators and which can be practically documented. The reference range indicates the range in which the results of an indicator are assessed as normal. A facility with a result outside the reference range is initially noticeable in terms of calculation, which usually results in an analysis in the structured dialog. It should be noted that an indicator result outside the reference range is not synonymous with a poor quality of the facility in the quality aspect considered here. The deviation can also e.g. be traceable to incorrect documentation or to individual cases. Quality is assessed in the context of the structured dialogue with the institutions. The results of this quality indicator can only be compared with the previous year's results to a limited extent due to adjustments to the calculation rule of the indicator. Further information on the adjustments made can be found in the description of the quality indicators at the following link: https://iqtig.org/qs-verfahren/.

Code ID	54029
Result (%)	Data protection
Evaluation through structured dialogue	The result is in the target area - the quality target is therefore considered to have been fully achieved. (R10)
Population	Data protection
Events observed	Data protection
Anticipated events	Data protection
Result trend compared with the previous reporting year	eingeschränkt/nicht vergleichbar
Comparison with the previous reporting year	eingeschränkt/nicht vergleichbar
National result (%)	1,89
Target range (reference range)	<= 6,35 % (95. Perzentil)
Confidence interval nationwide (%)	1,79 - 2,00
Hospital confidence interval (%)	0,00 - 0,00
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 It should be noted that this computational result may not be influenced exclusively by the respective institution. So e.g. the disease severity or concomitant diseases of the patients have an influence on the result. The reference range indicates the range in which the results of an indicator are assessed as normal. A facility with a result outside the reference range is initially computationally conspicuous, which usually results in an analysis in the structured dialog. It should be noted that an indicator result outside the reference range is not synonymous with a poor quality of the facility in the quality aspect considered here. The deviation can also e.g. be traceable to incorrect documentation or to individual cases. Quality is assessed in the context of the structured dialogue with the institutions.

Code ID	54042
Result	0,93
Evaluation through structured dialogue	The result is in the target area - the quality target is therefore considered to have been fully achieved. (R10)
Population	52
Events observed	4
Anticipated events	4,32
Result trend compared with the previous reporting year	eingeschränkt/nicht vergleichbar
Comparison with the previous reporting year	eingeschränkt/nicht vergleichbar
National result	1,03
Target range (reference range)	<= 2,42 (95. Perzentil)
Confidence interval nationwide	1,01 - 1,06
Hospital confidence interval	0,36 - 2,19
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 This indicator is a risk-adjusted indicator. A risk adjustment compensates for the different composition of the patient groups from different institutions. This leads to a fairer comparison, as there are patient-related risk factors (such as comorbidities) that systematically influence the indicator result without an institution being responsible for e.g. B. the following more frequent complications can be attributed. For example, the indicator result of a facility with many high-risk cases can be compared more statistically with the result of a facility with many low-risk cases. The risk factors are compiled from patient characteristics that were classified as risk-relevant as part of the development of quality indicators and which can be practically documented. The reference range indicates the range in which the results of an indicator are assessed as normal. A facility with a result outside the reference range is initially computationally conspicuous, which usually results in an analysis in the structured dialog. It should be noted that an indicator result outside the reference range is not synonymous with a poor quality of the facility in the quality aspect considered here. The deviation can also e.g. be traceable to incorrect documentation or to individual cases. Quality is assessed in the context of the structured dialogue with the institutions.

Code ID	54046
Result	0,53
Evaluation through structured dialogue
Population	Data protection
Events observed	Data protection
Anticipated events	Data protection
Result trend compared with the previous reporting year
Comparison with the previous reporting year
National result	1,07
Target range (reference range)
Confidence interval nationwide	1,03 - 1,10
Hospital confidence interval	0,09 - 2,78
Reference infection	No
Type of value	TKez
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 This indicator is a risk-adjusted indicator. A risk adjustment compensates for the different composition of the patient groups from different institutions. This leads to a fairer comparison, as there are patient-related risk factors (such as comorbidities) that systematically influence the indicator result without an institution being responsible for e.g. B. the following more frequent complications can be attributed. For example, the indicator result of a facility with many high-risk cases can be compared more statistically with the result of a facility with many low-risk cases. The risk factors are compiled from patient characteristics that were classified as risk-relevant as part of the development of quality indicators and which can be practically documented. The reference range indicates the range in which the results of an indicator are assessed as normal. A facility with a result outside the reference range is initially computationally conspicuous, which usually results in an analysis in the structured dialog. It should be noted that an indicator result outside the reference range is not synonymous with a poor quality of the facility in the quality aspect considered here. The deviation can also e.g. be traceable to incorrect documentation or to individual cases. Quality is assessed in the context of the structured dialogue with the institutions. The results of this quality indicator can only be compared to the previous year's results to a limited extent due to adjustments to the calculation rule of the indicator. Further information on the adjustments made can be found in the description of the quality indicators at the following link: https://iqtig.org/qs-verfahren/.