Background
National performance indicators | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Total Hip and Knee replacements *
|
S
|
P
|
O
| |
2b
| % of patients that was administered thrombosis prophylaxis for 6 weeks to 3 months post-surgery, in case of total hip or knee surgery | X | ||
4b
| % of patients that did not (2008 & 2009)/ did (2010) receive a homologue blood transfusion, in case of total hip or knee surgery | X | ||
5b
| % of patients that was administered antibiotics perioperatively | X | ||
5c
| % of patients that was administered antibiotics 15 to 60 min. prior to surgery or to blood emptiness | X | ||
5d
| % of patients with a deep wound infection after a total hip or knee replacement | X | ||
Breast Cancer **
|
S
|
P
|
O
| |
1
| % of patients who were seen by a breast cancer nurse specialist preoperatively | X | ||
2
| % of patients that was reviewed preoperatively in a multi-disciplinary team meeting | X | ||
3
| % of patients with a non-radical primary tumor resection | X | ||
4
| % of surgeons in the surgery department that perform surgical treatments of breast tumors | X | ||
5
| % of patients that are operated within 4 weeks after the final lab results are known | X | ||
6a
| % of patients with local recurrences within 5 years after breast-conserving surgery | X | ||
6b
| % of patients that have local recurrences within 5 years after ablative breast surgery | X | ||
7
| % of patients with a breast tumor that was postoperatively reviewed in a documented multi-disciplinary team meeting | X |
Methods
Study design
Study population
Data sources
DHTP performance indicator database (A)
Additional reliability data DHTP (B)
Web-based questionnaire (C)
Analyses
2008 | 2009 | 2010 | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PI | N | M | SD | Range | N | M | SD | Range | N | M | SD | Range | IS | |
HR
|
2b
| 64 | 99.92 | 0.602 | 95 –100 | 95 | 99.8 | 0.949 | 93 – 100 | 94 | 99.9 | 0.30 | 98 – 100 | 53 |
4b
| 52 | 91.27 | 22.79 | 0 – 100 | 91 | 90.6 | 15.24 | 0 - 100 | 93 | 16.13 | 26.58 | 0 – 100 | 6 | |
5b
| 65 | 100 | 0.000 | 100 - 100 | 96 | 99.7 | 1.402 | 93 - 100 | 94 | 101.0 | 15.65 | 70 – 100 | 53 | |
5c
| 59 | 97.38 | 14.00 | 0 – 100 | 94 | 98.0 | 5.827 | 66 - 100 | 93 | 98.9 | 16.98 | 64 – 100 | 37 | |
5d
| 60 | 0.816 | 0.740 | 0 – 2.7 | 93 | 0.719 | 0.674 | 0 – 2.75 | 93 | 0.754 | 0.804 | 0 – 4 | 5 | |
GM
|
60
|
78
|
8
|
/
|
94
|
78
|
5
|
/
|
93
|
63
|
12
|
/
|
37
| |
KR
|
2b
| 63 | 99.92 | 0.663 | 95 - 100 | 94 | 99.8 | 0.834 | 93 - 100 | 93 | 100 | 0.246 | 98 – 100 | 52 |
4b
| 54 | 91.17 | 25.72 | 0 - 100 | 89 | 95.6 | 10.99 | 0 - 100 | 92 | 11.65 | 27.15 | 0 – 100 | 7 | |
5b
| 64 | 100 | 0.00 | 100 - 100 | 95 | 99.8 | 1.101 | 92 - 100 | 93 | 99.6 | 2.342 | 78 – 100 | 52 | |
5c
| 59 | 96.84 | 15.71 | 0 - 100 | 93 | 97.8 | 6.52 | 60 - 100 | 92 | 96.8 | 8.979 | 49 – 100 | 39 | |
5d
| 59 | 0.50 | 0.649 | 0 – 3 | 92 | 0.554 | 0.631 | 0 – 3.2 | 92 | 0.544 | 0.616 | 0 – 3.3 | 6 | |
GM
|
60
|
78
|
9
|
/
|
93
|
79
|
4
|
/
|
92
|
62
|
8
|
/
|
37
| |
BC
|
1
| 68 | 100 | 5.055 | 75 – 100 | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / |
2
| 68 | 100 | 3.200 | 85 – 100 | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | |
3
| 66 | 9.675 | 5.464 | 0 – 24 | 95 | 9.215 | 4.733 | 0 – 29 | 94 | 7.279 | 4.026 | 0.95 - 23 | 0 | |
4
| 68 | 41.4 | 12.68 | 10 - 75 | 95 | 38.5 | 11.53 | 10 - 60 | / | / | / | / | / | |
5
| 63 | 90.48 | 14.92 | 17 - 100 | 95 | 89.2 | 10.30 | 51 - 100 | 94 | 88.9 | 11.85 | 34 – 100 | 0 | |
6a
| 57 | 2.130 | 2.247 | 0 -11 | 89 | 1.748 | 1.945 | 0 - 9 | 93 | 1.490 | 1.703 | 0 – 8 | 0 | |
6b
| 57 | 2.700 | 2.838 | 0 - 11 | 90 | 2.581 | 2.522 | 0 - 11 | 93 | 2.455 | 2.351 | 0 - 10 | 0 | |
7
| 65 | 100 | 5.568 | 74 - 100 | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | |
GM
|
64
|
56
|
6
|
/
|
93
|
28
|
6
|
/
|
94
|
25
|
5
|
/
|
0
|
Results and discussion
Hip replacement indicators
Data source A: Plausibility of the reported scores
Data source C: Heterogeneity of reported local data infrastructure
Data source ABC: Relation between computation methods, data collection and PI score
2b | 4b | 5b | 5c | 5d | Total | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NA
|
CAL
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
3
| ||
EST
|
12
|
2
|
7
|
9
|
0
|
30
| |||
A
|
DA
|
CAL
|
Total
|
12
|
22
|
12
|
10
|
20
|
76
|
IS
| 11 | 4 | 11 | 7 | 7 | 40 | |||
PS
| 1 | 18 | 1 | 3 | 12 | 35 | |||
MV
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
EST
|
Total
|
24
|
5
|
21
|
22
|
1
|
73
| ||
IS
| 23 | 3 | 20 | 21 | 1 | 68 | |||
PS
| 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5 | |||
MV
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
EA
|
CAL
|
Total
|
1
|
11
|
4
|
3
|
13
|
32
| |
IS
| 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 12 | |||
PS
| 0 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 23 | |||
MV
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
EST
|
Total
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
5
| ||
IS
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | |||
PS
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||
MV
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Breast cancer indicators
Data source A: Plausibility of the reported scores
Data source C: Heterogeneity of reported local data infrastructure
Data source ABC: Relation between computation methods, data collection and PI score
1 | 2 | 3 | 4a | 4b | Total | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NA
|
Total
| 1 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 8 |
23
| |
OWN
| 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
3
| ||
CCC
| 1 | 0 | 3 | 7 | 7 |
18
| ||
MV
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
2
| ||
A
|
DA
|
Total
| 28 | 32 | 28 | 29 | 28 |
145
|
OWN
| 16 | 28 | 14 | 3 | 4 |
65
| ||
CCC
| 12 | 4 | 13 | 25 | 23 |
77
| ||
MV
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
3
| ||
EA
|
Total
| 8 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 5 |
29
| |
OWN
| 4 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
11
| ||
CCC
| 4 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
17
| ||
MV
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
1
|