title: [Hospitals failing minimum volumes in 2004: reasons and consequences].
abstract: BACKGROUND
  In 2004 Germany introduced annual minimum volumes nationwide on five surgical procedures: kidney, liver, stem cell transplantation, complex oesophageal, and pancreatic interventions. Hospitals that fail to reach the minimum volumes are no longer allowed to perform the respective procedures unless they raise one of eight legally accepted exceptions. The goal of our study was to investigate how many hospitals fell short of the minimum volumes in 2004, whether and how this was justified, and whether hospitals that failed the requirements experienced any consequences.
  
  
  METHODS
  We analysed data on meeting the minimum volume requirements in 2004 that all German hospitals were obliged to publish as part of their biannual structured quality reports. We performed telephone interviews: a) with all hospitals not achieving the minimum volumes for complex oesophageal, and pancreatic interventions, and b) with the national umbrella organisations of all German sickness funds.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In 2004, one quarter of all German acute care hospitals (N=485) performed 23,128 procedures where minimum volumes applied. 197 hospitals (41%) did not meet at least one of the minimum volumes. These hospitals performed N=715 procedures (3.1%) where the minimum volumes were not met. In 43% of these cases the hospitals raised legally accepted exceptions. In 33% of the cases the hospitals argued using reasons that were not legally acknowledged. 69% of those hospitals that failed to achieve the minimum volumes for complex oesophageal and pancreatic interventions did not experience any consequences from the sickness funds. However, one third of those hospitals reported that the sickness funds addressed the issue and partially announced consequences for the future. The sickness funds' umbrella organisations stated that there were only sparse activities related to the minimum volumes and that neither uniform registrations nor uniform proceedings in case of infringements of the standards had been agreed upon.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In spite of the high number of hospitals that failed to achieve the minimum volumes in 2004, only few hospitals experienced consequences from the sickness funds. The reluctance of the payers may be explained, amongst others, by the small number of patients affected and the percentage of cases where legally accepted exceptions applied. In view of the partly unclear definitions of the exceptions and difficulties in the interpretation and execution of the minimum volumes in the hospitals and at the sickness fund level, it may be helpful to formulate more concrete instructions for the implementation of the standards.
authors.affiliation: Public Health Studiengang an der Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf. geraedts@uni-duesseldorf.de
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Geraedts
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Kühnen
authors.forename: W de
authors.initials: Wd
authors.lastname: Cruppé
authors.forename: K
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Blum
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Ohmann
mesh_terms: D005858:Germany; D019983:Guideline Adherence / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D013503:Surgery Department, Hospital / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D013514:Surgical Procedures, Operative / Q000191:economics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D014600:Utilization Review; D016526:Workload / Q000191:economics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000592:standards / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*