Quality Indicators in Pancreatic Surgery: Lessons Learned from the German DGAV StuDoQ|Pancreas Registry.

Ulrich F Wellner, Tobias Keck
Author Information
  1. Ulrich F Wellner: Clinic for Surgery, German Society for General and Visceral Surgery (DGAV), Berlin, Germany.
  2. Tobias Keck: Clinic for Surgery, University Clinic Schleswig-Holstein Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Political and public interest in quality management in surgery is increasing. The German Society for General and Visceral Surgery (DGAV) established the DGAV StuDoQ, a nationwide registry for quality assessment in visceral surgery, with the organ-specific module DGAV StuDoQ|Pancreas. The first prerequisite for the measurement of quality is the definition of quality indicators. These can be related to risk factors which are also documented in the registry.
METHODS: Quality indicators for pancreatic surgery were developed by review of the current literature and expert consensus. After ranking the potential quality indicators, three essential indicators for outcome quality were selected for further review of the literature. Current figures were extracted from the DGAV StuDoQ|Pancreas registry and the correlation with selected risk factors was tested.
RESULTS: Three essential outcome quality indicators were selected: in-hospital mortality, TV30, and severe complications according to the Clavien-Dindo Classification. Preliminary data confirms the validity of risk factors included in the DGAV StuDoQ|Pancreas registry.
CONCLUSION: Essential quality indicators were defined for pancreatic surgery. The DGAV StuDoQ|Pancreas constitutes a valid platform for risk-adjusted quality assessment in Germany.

Keywords

References

  1. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Jun 16;101(12):848-59 [PMID: 19509366]
  2. Ann Surg. 2016 Sep;264(3):528-37 [PMID: 27513157]
  3. Br J Surg. 2016 Jan;103(1):136-43 [PMID: 26505976]
  4. J Gastrointest Surg. 2013 Jan;17(1):86-93; discussion p.93 [PMID: 23129119]
  5. Ann Surg. 2016 Apr;263(4):664-72 [PMID: 26636243]
  6. J Gastrointest Surg. 2011 Jun;15(6):1055-62 [PMID: 21267670]
  7. Ann Surg. 2015 Dec;262(6):1071-8 [PMID: 25590497]
  8. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2012 Jun 1;10(6):703-13 [PMID: 22679115]
  9. BMJ. 2016 Jul 21;354:i3571 [PMID: 27444190]
  10. Surgery. 2016 Apr;159(4):1004-12 [PMID: 26652859]
  11. Ann Surg. 2014 May;259(5):960-5 [PMID: 24096757]
  12. Ann Surg. 2016 Mar;263(3):440-9 [PMID: 26135690]
  13. Ann Surg. 2016 Dec;264(6):1082-1090 [PMID: 26978570]
  14. Surgery. 2014 Sep;156(3):622-31 [PMID: 25017138]
  15. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014 Mar;18(3):464-75 [PMID: 24448997]
  16. Br J Surg. 2012 Mar;99(3):404-10 [PMID: 22237731]
  17. Z Gastroenterol. 2013 Dec;51(12):1395-440 [PMID: 24338757]
  18. Ann Surg. 2009 Aug;250(2):187-96 [PMID: 19638912]
  19. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011 Jul;18(7):1821-9 [PMID: 21544657]
  20. Br J Surg. 2014 Jul;101(8):1000-5 [PMID: 24844590]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0qualityDGAVindicatorssurgeryregistryStuDoQ|PancreasriskfactorsQualityGermanassessmentpancreaticreviewliteratureessentialoutcomeselectedPancreaticBACKGROUND:PoliticalpublicinterestmanagementincreasingSocietyGeneralVisceralSurgeryestablishedStuDoQnationwidevisceralorgan-specificmodulefirstprerequisitemeasurementdefinitioncanrelatedalsodocumentedMETHODS:developedcurrentexpertconsensusrankingpotentialthreeCurrentfiguresextractedcorrelationtestedRESULTS:Threeselected:in-hospitalmortalityTV30severecomplicationsaccordingClavien-DindoClassificationPreliminarydataconfirmsvalidityincludedCONCLUSION:Essentialdefinedconstitutesvalidplatformrisk-adjustedGermanyIndicatorsSurgery:LessonsLearnedRegistryClinicalindicatorRiskfactor

Similar Articles

Cited By