Werner de Cruppé

Universität Witten/Herdecke, Witten, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany

Are you Werner de Cruppé?

Claim your profile

Publications (39)34.89 Total impact

  • W de Cruppé, M Geraedts
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: The outcome volume relationship has been analysed for more than 30 years and debated ever since. For German hospitals minimum volume standards (MVS) have been introduced for some procedures in 2004. Hospitals have to report procedure volumes in their quality reports. This study analyses for the first time how constant hospitals comply with minimum volume standards over time. Materials and Methods: Data used are the reported volumes, which hospitals published in their quality reports in 2006, 2008, and 2010. The case volumes of complex oesophageal and pancreatic interventions, total knee replacements, and liver, kidney and stem cell transplantations (KTX, LTX, STX) are analysed in a retrospective, longitudinal study design. Results: More than 80 % of hospitals conducting LTX, KTX, and total knee replacements are complying with MVS constantly, in STX 57 % of hospitals comply, and with complex pancreatic and oesophageal interventions compliance is 44 and 28 %, respectively. Twenty-seven to 36 % of hospitals conducting the three last mentioned procedures vary in complying with the MVS over time. 3.5 % (total knee replacements) up to 26 % (pancreatic interventions) and 37 % (oesophageal interventions) of all hospitals constantly fail to comply with MVS. Hospitals constantly over the MVS treat more than 80 % of all patients, except in complex oesophageal interventions. Hospitals with varying compliance in oesophageal and pancreatic interventions are mainly hospitals with 100 to 599 beds. Only very few hospitals of these two procedure types stop conducting the interventions after failing to comply with MVS earlier, the other some 120 hospitals for each intervention type treat 2 cases on average per year. Conclusion: The MVS on KTX, LTX, STX, and total knee replacement are almost constantly complied with. A considerable number of hospitals conducting oesophageal and pancreatic interventions never or rarely meet the MVS without discontinuing this type of intervention. At least for hospitals that never comply with MVS on oesophageal and pancreatic interventions, requirements and possibilities for a regional patient transfer should be studied in depth. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
    Zentralblatt fur Chirurgie, Supplement 02/2015; DOI:10.1055/s-0034-1383371
  • Werner de Cruppé, Marc Malik, Max Geraedts
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Legally mandated minimum hospital caseload requirements for certain invasive procedures, including pancreatectomy, esophagectomy, and some types of organ transplantation, have been in effect in Germany since 2004. The goal of such requirements is to improve patient care by ensuring that patients undergo certain procedures only in hospitals that have met the corresponding minimum caseload requirement. We used the case numbers published in legally mandated hospital quality control reports to determine whether the hospitals actually met the stipulated requirements.
    Deutsches Ärzteblatt International 08/2014; 111(33-34):549-55. DOI:10.3238/arztebl.2014.0549 · 3.61 Impact Factor
  • S. Auras, W. de Cruppé, F. Diel, M. Geraedts
    Gesundheitsökonomie &amp Qualitätsmanagement 05/2014; 19(03):119-125. DOI:10.1055/s-0033-1350367
  • P Hermeling, W de Cruppé, M Geraedts
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study examines the quality criteria which, from the perspective of non-hospital based physicians, are relevant in order to give patients quality-oriented recommendations in the selection of a suitable hospital or specialist.A primary telephone survey of 300 physicians from 5 specialist groups collected relevance assessments of 59 quality criteria for hospitals, GPs and specialist practices. A descriptive bi- and multivariate analysis was performed using McNemar tests, correlation and regression analysis.Next to the personal experiences which the physician and his patients made with the hospital or non-hospital based colleague in the past, there is a general interest in vital structural and outcome parameters of hospitals and medical practices. Physicians deem the nature and scope of services offered by the hospitals and medical practices as less relevant. In 12 of the 59 examined quality criteria, the relevance assessments differ depending on whether the physician is dealing with an elective admission to hospital or a referral to a GP or specialist. In the analysis of possible correlations between preferences and factors which might be influencing the physician, gender, age and specialisation were found to have an effect.
    Das Gesundheitswesen 04/2013; 75(7). DOI:10.1055/s-0032-1327745 · 0.62 Impact Factor
  • M. Geraedts, M. Malik, O. Jung, W. de Cruppé
    Senologie - Zeitschrift für Mammadiagnostik und -therapie 03/2013; 10(01):39-44. DOI:10.1055/s-0032-1330708
  • Source
    Silke Auras, Werner de Cruppé, Karl Blum, Max Geraedts
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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.
    BMC Health Services Research 10/2012; 12(1):378. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-12-378 · 1.66 Impact Factor
  • M Geraedts, M Malik, O Jung, W de Cruppé
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To improve quality of breast cancer care, in 2004 the state of North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW), Germany, began to appoint 51 breast cancer centres. These centres comprise 91 hospitals performing breast cancer surgery which have - amongst other things - to fulfill minimum volume standards. The aim of our study was to analyse if the intended regionalisation of care from 252 hospitals performing breast cancer surgery formerly to the appointed hospitals had taken place by the year 2010.We used data for the years 2004-2010 from the agency for quality assurance in North Rhine-Westphalia concerning breast cancer care and analysed trends concerning the number of hospitals performing breast cancer surgery, case volumes, and achievement of minimum volume standards by performing descriptive and inferential statistics.Between 2004 and 2010 the number of breast cancer cases increased by 36.6% from 12 975 to 17 724 cases (p<0.001, Wilcoxon test). Simultaneously, the number of hospitals performing breast cancer surgery decreased from 252 to 208 whereby more than double the number of planned hospitals still performed breast cancer surgery. The case volumes of the 71 appointed hospitals for which we had individual data over the entire period of time increased by 49.4% from 8 103 cases in year 2004 to 12 105 cases in 2010. Assuming that case volume trends of those 20 appointed hospitals of which we did not have individual data developed uniformly to all other appointed hospitals, the proportion of cases that were operated in not appointed hospitals decreased from 20% in year 2004 to 12.5% in 2010 (p<0.001, χ2 test). Simultaneously, the proportion of cases that were operated in hospitals not achieving minimum volume standards decreased from 42.7% in year 2004 to 12.1% in 2010 (p<0.001, χ2 test).The establishment of breast cancer centres in NRW regionalised breast cancer surgery. In fact, in 2010 breast cancer surgery still took place in more than 100 not appointed hospitals. However, these hospitals were responsible for only a small proportion of breast cancer surgery.
    Das Gesundheitswesen 10/2012; 75(7). DOI:10.1055/s-0032-1323701 · 0.62 Impact Factor
  • Gesundheitsökonomie &amp Qualitätsmanagement 08/2012; 17(04):179-184. DOI:10.1055/s-0031-1281826
  • Max Geraedts, Peter Hermeling, Werner de Cruppé
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Non-hospital based physicians usually counsel their patients which hospital to choose. Our aim was to determine which formats for presenting quality of care data are preferred by physicians. 300 randomly recruited non-hospital based physicians participated in a survey. We created eight presentation formats which varied in terms of information aggregation and usage of evaluative cues. Participants rated clarity, comprehensibility, information content, acceptance, and preference of the presentation formats. Additionally, we tested physicians' comprehension of the formats. Physicians' ratings of the formats differed significantly (p<0.001). Formats combining numeric information and evaluative cues performed best in terms of information content, comprehensibility and preference. Comprehension of presentation formats also differed (p<0.001). Even though physicians' accuracy of interpreting "Simple Star Rating" was best a majority of participants accepted only formats that contained detailed numerical information (p<0.001). In order to support physicians' use of quality of care information in counseling patients, report cards should depict indicator values in a format that combines actual indicator values with evaluative cues. If authors of comparative hospital quality reports apply the results of our study in designing reports, the results may increase physicians' use of comparative performance reports in their counseling of patients.
    Patient Education and Counseling 12/2011; 87(3):375-82. DOI:10.1016/j.pec.2011.11.005 · 2.60 Impact Factor
  • Gesundheitsökonomie &amp Qualitätsmanagement 12/2011; 16(06):341-347. DOI:10.1055/s-0031-1273295
  • W de Cruppé, M Geraedts
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients want to decide on health care providers. Published quality reports are supposed to help but are rarely used. How patients manage choosing a hospital for elective surgery in Germany and whether they use the hospital quality reports was explored for the Federal Joint Committee. A cross-sectional survey asked 48 hospitalized patients from 5 specialties in 4 hospitals after elective surgery about their criteria and sources of information, and their use of the compulsory quality reports for choosing the hospital. Data were analyzed descriptively. To choose their hospital is very important for patients with elective surgery and they do so. Usually there is enough time to obtain information before admission. The three main criteria are own experience with a hospital, short distance from their homes, and the hospital's expertise. The main sources of information are relatives, contact with the hospital's outpatient departments, and patient's ambulatory health care provider. Written information is only used as supplementary information. The compulsory quality reports are not known and, hence, are not used.
    Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz 08/2011; 54(8):951-7. · 0.72 Impact Factor
  • W. de Cruppé, M. Geraedts
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: HintergrundPatienten wollen die Behandlerwahl (mit-)entscheiden. Veröffentlichte Qualitätsinformationen sollen hierbei helfen, werden aber selten genutzt. Wie Patienten bei der Krankenhauswahl vor elektiven operativen Eingriffen in Deutschland tatsächlich vorgehen und ob sie die Krankenhausqualitätsberichte nutzen, wurde für den Gemeinsamen Bundesausschuss untersucht. MethodeIn einer querschnittlichen Untersuchung wurden 48 stationäre Patienten aus fünf Fachgebieten nach elektivem Eingriff in vier Krankenhäusern zu ihren Wahlkriterien und Informationsquellen und der Verwendung der gesetzlichen Qualitätsberichte befragt. Die Daten wurden deskriptiv ausgewertet. ErgebnissePatienten ist bei elektivem Krankenhausaufenthalt die eigene Wahl sehr wichtig, und sie treffen sie auch überwiegend selber. Fast immer besteht ausreichend Zeit, sich vorab zu informieren. Die drei häufigsten Wahlkriterien sind die eigene Vorerfahrung mit dem Krankenhaus, die Wohnortnähe und die Kompetenz der Klinik. Die wichtigsten Informationsquellen sind Angehörige, Vorkontakt in der Krankenhausambulanz und die eigenen ambulanten Behandler; schriftliche Informationen werden nur ergänzend verwendet. Die gesetzlichen Qualitätsberichte sind nicht bekannt und werden nicht verwendet. BackgroundPatients want to decide on health care providers. Published quality reports are supposed to help but are rarely used. How patients manage choosing a hospital for elective surgery in Germany and whether they use the hospital quality reports was explored for the Federal Joint Committee. MethodA cross-sectional survey asked 48 hospitalized patients from 5 specialties in 4 hospitals after elective surgery about their criteria and sources of information, and their use of the compulsory quality reports for choosing the hospital. Data were analyzed descriptively. ResultsTo choose their hospital is very important for patients with elective surgery and they do so. Usually there is enough time to obtain information before admission. The three main criteria are own experience with a hospital, short distance from their homes, and the hospital’s expertise. The main sources of information are relatives, contact with the hospital’s outpatient departments, and patient’s ambulatory health care provider. Written information is only used as supplementary information. The compulsory quality reports are not known and, hence, are not used. SchlüsselwörterKrankenhauswahl–Patientenautonomie–Querschnittsuntersuchung–Deutsches Gesundheitssystem–Elektive operative Eingriffe KeywordsHospital choice–Patient autonomy–Cross-sectional survey–German health care system–Elective surgery
    Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz 08/2011; 54(8):951-957. DOI:10.1007/s00103-011-1320-3 · 1.01 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patient and physician attributes influence medical decisions as non-medical factors. The current study examines the influence of patient age and gender and physicians' gender and years of clinical experience on medical decision making in patients with undiagnosed diabetes type 2. A factorial experiment was conducted to estimate the influence of patient and physician attributes. An identical physician patient encounter with a patient presenting with diabetes symptoms was videotaped with varying patient attributes. Professional actors played the "patients". A sample of 64 randomly chosen and stratified (gender and years of experience) primary care physicians was interviewed about the presented videos. Results show few significant differences in diagnostic decisions: Younger patients were asked more frequently about psychosocial problems while with older patients a cancer diagnosis was more often taken into consideration. Female physicians made an earlier second appointment date compared to male physicians. Physicians with more years of professional experience considered more often diabetes as the diagnosis than physicians with less experience. Medical decision making in patients with diabetes type 2 is only marginally influenced by patients' and physicians' characteristics under study.
    DMW - Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift 02/2011; 136(8):359-64. DOI:10.1055/s-0031-1272536 · 0.65 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Benchmarking as a tool of organisational development is directed towards improvement through learning from others. The German Ministry of Health funded 10 demonstration projects on clinical benchmarking in order to study the prerequisites to and the methods for its dissemination. The evaluation was carried out as an observational study in 2008. The evaluation tools used included a list of criteria to uniformly describe benchmarking networks and a scheme to categorize the realized benchmarking steps.
    Zeitschrift für Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen 01/2011; 105(5):331-4. DOI:10.1016/j.zefq.2011.05.008
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A survey among 232 German health care organisations addressed benchmarking projects in patient care. 53 projects were reported and analysed using a benchmarking development scheme and a list of criteria. None of the projects satisfied all the criteria. Rather, examples of best practice for single aspects have been identified.
    Zeitschrift für Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen 01/2011; 105(5):335-8.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Development of a starter set of quality indicators for application by general practitioners and specialists in the outpatient care sector. The results of a systematic search for national and international quality indicators relevant to the outpatient care sector in Germany provided the basis for the indicator selection process. Outpatient care doctors rated the relevance and feasibility of the indicators according to the RAND/UCLA method. In a further step the indicators were tested in medical practices, focussing on data availability and accessibility. As a result, we established a set of 48 reliable, structurally developed and patient-oriented quality indicators which can be used for quality improvement in the outpatient care setting, both by specialists and general practitioners. The project provides important information with regard to the future development and use of quality indicators. Depending on the potential fields of application, the development of new indicators as well as a corresponding IT infrastructure is of high priority. Possible unintended effects of indicators will have to be considered.
    Zeitschrift für Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen 01/2011; 105(1):54-63.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Zusammenfassung Hintergrund Bis Ende 2009 mussten die vertragsärztlichen Praxen in Deutschland ein einrichtungsinternes Qualitätsmanagement (QM) eingeführt haben. Die Untersuchung erhebt den Stand der Einführung in kinder- und jugendärztlichen Praxen zum Herbst 2008. Stichprobe 457 (75%) von 611 Kinder- und Jugendärzten einer zufallsgezogenen Stichprobe nahmen teil. Methode Mit einer querschnittlichen Beobachtungsstudie wurden per Fragebogen 50 Qualitätsmerkmale erhoben und varianzstatistisch mittels χ2-Tests analysiert. Ergebnisse 420 (92%) der Kinder- und Jugendärzte haben begonnen, ein QM einzuführen. Qualitätsmerkmale zur Praxissicherheit werden im Alltag bisher am häufigsten umgesetzt, am seltensten Qualitätsmerkmale zur Patientenorientierung. Praxisart und Niederlassungsdauer weisen einzelne, der Typ des QM-Systems nur geringe Unterschiede bei der Umsetzung der Qualitätsmerkmale auf. Praxen ohne QM zeigen bei fast der Hälfte der Qualitätsmerkmale signifikant niedrigere Umsetzungsgrade als Praxen mit bereits eingeführtem QM. Schlussfolgerung Kinder- und jugendärztliche Praxen führen QM ein. Es erhöht die Umsetzung prozessbezogener Qualitätsmerkmale.
    Monatsschrift Kinderheilkunde 01/2011; 159(2):145-151. DOI:10.1007/s00112-010-2287-0 · 0.28 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A survey among 232 German health care organisations addressed benchmarking projects in patient care. 53 projects were reported and analysed using a benchmarking development scheme and a list of criteria. None of the projects satisfied all the criteria. Rather, examples of best practice for single aspects have been identified.
    Zeitschrift für Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen 01/2011; 105(5):335-338. DOI:10.1016/j.zefq.2011.05.002
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Nine out of ten demonstration projects on clinical benchmarking funded by the German Ministry of Health were evaluated. Project reports and interviews were uniformly analysed using a list of criteria and a scheme to categorize the realized benchmarking approach. At the end of the funding period four benchmarking networks had implemented all benchmarking steps, and six were continued after funding had expired. The improvement of outcome quality cannot yet be assessed. Factors promoting the introduction of benchmarking networks with regard to organisational and process aspects of benchmarking implementation were derived.
    Zeitschrift für Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen 01/2011; 105(5):339-42. DOI:10.1016/j.zefq.2011.05.003
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aim Development of a starter set of quality indicators for application by general practitioners and specialists in the outpatient care sector. Methodology The results of a systematic search for national and international quality indicators relevant to the outpatient care sector in Germany provided the basis for the indicator selection process. Outpatient care doctors rated the relevance and feasibility of the indicators according to the RAND/UCLA method. In a further step the indicators were tested in medical practices, focussing on data availability and accessibility. Results As a result, we established a set of 48 reliable, structurally developed and patient-oriented quality indicators which can be used for quality improvement in the outpatient care setting, both by specialists and general practitioners. Discussion The project provides important information with regard to the future development and use of quality indicators. Depending on the potential fields of application, the development of new indicators as well as a corresponding IT infrastructure is of high priority. Possible unintended effects of indicators will have to be considered.
    Zeitschrift für Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen 01/2011; 105(1):54-63. DOI:10.1016/j.zefq.2010.12.005

Publication Stats

102 Citations
34.89 Total Impact Points

Institutions

  • 2009–2015
    • Universität Witten/Herdecke
      • Faculty of Health
      Witten, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
  • 2011
    • Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung
      Berlín, Berlin, Germany
  • 2006–2010
    • Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf
      • Koordinierungszentrum für Klinische Studien (KKS)
      Düsseldorf, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
  • 2008
    • Deutsches Krankenhausinstitut
      Düsseldorf, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany