Skip to main content

01.12.2012 | Research article | Ausgabe 1/2012 Open Access

BMC Health Services Research 1/2012

Mandatory quality reports in Germany from the hospitals’ point of view: a cross-sectional observational study

BMC Health Services Research > Ausgabe 1/2012
Silke Auras, Werner de Cruppé, Karl Blum, Max Geraedts
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.​1186/​1472-6963-12-378) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Competing interests

KB is a researcher at the German Hospital Institute® (DKI®) which is a leading institution for research, counseling and training in the field of hospital health care. Major associations and institutions of the German hospital industry are members of DKI®. KB conducted and supervised data collection. He was not involved in data analysis which was - under supervision of WC and MG - exclusively performed by SA at Witten/Herdecke University. The other authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Authors’ contributions

KB collected data. SA performed data analysis and drafted the manuscript. WC and MG designed the study, supervised data analysis and helped draft the manuscript. KB, WC and MG revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.



Public reporting of hospital quality is to enable providers, patients and the public to make comparisons regarding the quality of care and thus contribute to informed decisions. It stimulates quality improvement activities in hospitals and thus positively impacts treatment results. Hospitals often use publicly reported data for further internal or external purposes.
As of 2005, German hospitals are obliged to publish structured quality reports (QR) every two years. This gives them the opportunity to demonstrate their performance by number, type and quality in a transparent way. However, it constitutes a major burden to hospitals to generate and publish data required, and it is yet unknown if hospitals feel adequately represented and at the same time consider the effort appropriate.
This study assesses hospital leaders’ judgement about the capability of QR to put legally defined aims effectively and efficiently into practice. It also explores the additional purposes hospitals use their QR for.


In a cross-sectional observational study, a representative random sample out of 2,064 German hospitals (N=748) was invited to assess QR via questionnaire; 333 hospitals participated. We recorded the suitability of QR for representing number, type and quality of services, the adequacy of cost and benefits (6-level Likert scales) and additional purposes QR are used for (free text question). For representation purposes, the net sample was weighted for hospital size and hospital ownership (direct standardization). Data was analyzed descriptively and using inferential statistics (chi-2 test) or for the purpose of generating hypotheses.


German hospitals rated the QR as suitable to represent the number of services but less so for the type and quality of services. The cost-benefit ratio was seen as inadequate. There were no significant differences between hospitals of different size or ownership.
Public hospitals additionally used their reports for mostly internal purposes (e.g. comparison with competitors, quality management) whereas private ones used them externally (e.g. communication, marketing) (p=0.024, chi-2 test, hypotheses-generating level).


German hospitals consider the mandatory QR as only partially capable to put the legally defined aims effectively and efficiently into practice. In order for public reporting to achieve its potentially positive effects, the QR must be more closely aligned to the needs of hospitals.
Additional file 1: Questionnaire. This file includes the translated questionnaire used in the survey (original language was German). (PDF 35 KB)
Authors’ original file for figure 1
Authors’ original file for figure 2
Authors’ original file for figure 3
Authors’ original file for figure 4
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2012

BMC Health Services Research 1/2012 Zur Ausgabe