Christliches Klinikum Unna gGmbH

Quality results

Treatment sector: Artificial hip joint: first insertion or exchange (HGV-HEP) Explanation

Information about this treatment area (documentation)

Designation	Hüftendoprothesenversorgung
Shortcut	HEP
Number of cases	596
Documentation rate	100.84 %
Hospital comment	Die Dokumentationsrate wurde krankenhausbezogen berechnet.

Summary result:

No assessment is possible for one quality characteristic

Number of patients treated: 596

Quality objective achieved
Quality objective not achieved

The results in detail

Show national result

Quality criterion

Hospital result
and target area

Quality objective
achieved?

All information

Ratio of the actual number to the previously expected number of patients in whom the artificial hip joint or individual parts were replaced (based on the period of 90 days after the operation in which the artificial hip joint was first inserted - individual risks of the patients were taken into account)

Hospital: Data protection

No information due to data protection

Target area: at most 2,27

Assessment not possible

Click here

Code ID	10271
Result	Data protection
Evaluation through structured dialogue	An evaluation is not possible because there were no patients in the hospital to whom this quality criterion could be applied. (N01)
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	0,83
Target range (reference range)	<= 2,27 (95. Perzentil)
Confidence interval nationwide	0,80 - 0,86
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 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. the following more frequent complications can be attributed to it. 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/. This quality indicator represents both events such as Complications that occur before discharge from a hospital, as well as events that occur after discharge but can still be related to the implantation.