HELIOS Klinikum Siegburg

Quality results

Treatment sector: Bypass surgery: coronary artery surgery (KCHK-KC)

Information about this treatment area (documentation)

Designation	Koronarchirurgische Operation
Shortcut	HCH_KC
Counts to the treatment area	HCH
Number of cases	302
Documentation rate	100.99 %

Summary result:

In 2 of 2 quality characteristics, the quality objective was achieved.
No assessment is possible for any quality characteristic

Number of patients treated: 302

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

This is how often the chest wall artery was used as a bypass in a bypass operation

Hospital: 97,66 %

Target area: at least 90,00 %

Quality objective achieved

Click here

How rarely patients die in hospital as a result of urgent planned bypass surgery

Hospital: 1,67 %

as rarely as possible

Evaluation is not available

Click here

Ratio of actual to expected number of patients died in hospital as a result of bypass surgery

Hospital: 1,14

Target area: at most 2,33

Quality objective achieved

Click here

Code ID	352000
Result (%)	97,66
Evaluation through structured dialogue	The result is in the target area - the quality target is therefore considered to have been fully achieved. (R10)
Population	256
Events observed	250
Anticipated events	0,00
Result trend compared with the previous reporting year	unverändert
Comparison with the previous reporting year	unverändert
National result (%)	95,62
Target range (reference range)	>= 90,00 %
Confidence interval nationwide (%)	95,35 - 95,87
Hospital confidence interval (%)	94,98 - 98,92
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 establishes a benchmark for the evaluation 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 incorrect documentation, medical specificity of the patient collective or individual cases. The evaluation of quality is carried out within the framework of the defined procedure in the comments procedure. More detailed information on reference areas can be found at the following link: https://iqtig.org/das-iqtig/grundlagen/methodische-grundlagen.

Code ID	352006
Result (%)	1,67
Evaluation through structured dialogue
Population	240
Events observed	4
Anticipated events	0,00
Result trend compared with the previous reporting year
Comparison with the previous reporting year
National result (%)	1,77
Target range (reference range)
Confidence interval nationwide (%)	1,60 - 1,96
Hospital confidence interval (%)	0,65 - 4,21
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 Although indicators represent quality, their results do not allow a direct assessment of the quality of care (due to the lack of a reference range) and they are not suitable for direct quality comparisons (due to the lack of mathematical adjustment). However, they are usually published in direct connection with a quality indicator, the results of which are supplemented by the indicator values (imputed and supplementary indicators). They thus contribute to an increase in the comprehensibility of the quality results. The transparency indicators, which are to be distinguished from these, represent aspects of care for which there are no quality indicators, but which are nevertheless important for presenting the quality of care. More detailed information on ratios can be found at the following link: https://iqtig.org/veroeffentlichungen/kennzahlenkonzept.

Code ID	352007
Result	1,14
Evaluation through structured dialogue	The result is in the target area - the quality target is therefore considered to have been fully achieved. (R10)
Population	257
Events observed	6
Anticipated events	5,25
Result trend compared with the previous reporting year	unverändert
Comparison with the previous reporting year	unverändert
National result	0,99
Target range (reference range)	<= 2,33 (95. Perzentil)
Confidence interval nationwide	0,92 - 1,06
Hospital confidence interval	0,53 - 2,45
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 Risk adjustment aims to compensate for the different patient structure in different facilities. Ideally, this leads to a fair comparison of the different facilities, since patients have individual risk factors (such as concomitant diseases) that systematically influence the quality outcome, without it being possible to attribute responsibility for e.g. resulting more frequent complications to one facility. With the help of risk adjustment, the quality outcome of, for example, an institution with many high-risk cases can be statistically compared more fairly with the quality outcome of an institution with many low-risk cases. More information on risk adjustment can be found at the following link: https://iqtig.org/das-iqtig/grundlagen/methodische-grundlagen. 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 establishes a benchmark for the evaluation of facilities. A result outside the reference range is initially considered suspicious. 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 incorrect documentation, medical specificity of the patient collective or individual cases. The evaluation of quality is carried out within the framework of the defined procedure in the comments procedure. More detailed information on reference areas can be found at the following link: https://iqtig.org/das-iqtig/grundlagen/methodische-grundlagen.