Search

In Germany, there are no uniform hospital standards for the transparent calculation of medical staffing requirements in hospitals. This is particularly true for outpatient services.The ALGK conducted a member survey via the link https://de.surveymonkey.com/r/H7TTJYZ from March 21 to May 1, 2024. 400 members with a valid email address were contacted. The 119 extraordinary members who had ended their professional activity were not included. 17 questions were asked in the survey.The response rate was 24%. 37% represented basic and standard, 47% specialized and 16% maximum care providers. Municipal hospitals were represented by 42%, denominational providers by 34% and private providers by 24%. 7% of the hospitals had fewer than 200 beds, 28% 200 to 400 beds, 37% 400 to 600 beds, 15% 600 to 800 beds and 13% more than 800 beds. Up to 1.500 patients were treated annually in 15%, up to 2.500 patients in 15%, each up to 3.000 or 4.000 patient in 22%s, up to 5,000 patientsin 16% and more than 5.000 patients per year in 12%. The average casemix was 2373 ± 999 and the casemix index 0.70 ± 0.11. On average, 17.6 ± 7.6 doctor's posts were available and one consultant treated 14 ± 2.7 patients per day. A transparent personnel calculation was not available in 56% of the departments or clinics, in 82% there was no internal cost allocation or cost recovery calculation, in 54% there was no internal cost allocation. In 54%, there was no feedback on outpatient services from the administration, in 93% there was no transparent calculation of physician positions based on outpatient services, in 97% the training and further training of young colleagues was not taken into account in the calculation of positions, in 75% there was no communicated and recognizable strategic plan by the hospital operator for the senior gastroenterologists with regard to outpatient services. 49% of those surveyed feared that their hospital operator would not be able to cope with the restructuring in the healthcare sector with outpatient services, centralization, minimum volume compliance and would even jeopardize its existence.Transparent job calculation and communication about inpatient and outpatient gastroenterology services and the strategic objectives of the healthcare structural reform are very patchy in German hospitals. This leads to a high degree of uncertainty and existential fears., Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: With the introduction of §115f SGB V, the prerequisites for "sector-equal remuneration" ('Hybrid DRG') have been created. In an impact analysis, we assigned inpatient gastroenterological endoscopic (GAEN) cases in a matrix of future hybrid DRG versus outpatient surgery (AOP) or inpatient treatment., Methods: In selected DRGs (G47B, G67A, G67B, G67C, G71Z, H41D, H41E) an allocation matrix of GAEN cases was created on medical grounds. For this purpose, service groups from the DGVS service catalog ('Leistungskatalog') were assigned to the groups: 'Hybrid-DRG', 'AOP' and 'Inpatient' by a group of experts based on the DGVS position paper. Cost data from the DGVS-DRG project for the 2022 data year from 36 InEK calculation hospitals with a total of 232,476 GAEN cases were evaluated., Results: 26 service groups from the DGVS service catalog were assigned to a "Hybrid-DRG", 24 to the "inpatient" group, and 12 to the "AOP" group. 7 performance groups were splitted "depending on the OPS code" and classified at this level. Cases with additional fees were excluded from a hybrid DRG because these cannot be agreed there.The cost analysis shows that services that are already in the AOP have a similar cost level to services that have been classified as 'Hybrid-DRG'. With the cost calculation, a cost level could be presented for the hybrid DRGs formed., Conclusion: Based on clearly defined structural, procedural and personnel requirements, services from suitable DRGs can be transferred to a hybrid DRG. Assigning services without the involvement of clinical experts seems extremely difficult. Case assignment based on arbitrary contextual factors increases complexity without demonstrably increasing the quality of the assignment and needs to be further developed. A cost analysis can be derived from the known inpatient costs and must serve as the basis for the 2025 Hybrid DRG catalog., Competing Interests: Keiner der Autoren erklärt einen Interessenkonflikt. Die inspiring-health GmbH (Markus Rathmayer, Wolfgang Heinlein) erfasst und berechnet auf Honorarbasis die §-21-KHEntgG-Datensätze der am DGVS-DRG-Projekt teilnehmenden Häuser., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The transfer of patient care and medical interventions that was previously provided on an inpatient basis to outpatient settings is a stated goal of health politics. It is unclear to what extent costs of an endoscopic procedure and the disease severity depend on the duration of inpatient treatment. We therefore examined whether endoscopic services for cases with a one-day length of stay (VWD) are comparably expensive to cases with a longer VWD., Methods: Outpatient services were selected from the DGVS service catalog. Day cases with exactly one such gastroenterological endoscopic (GAEN) service were compared with cases with VWD>1 day regarding their patient clinical complexity levels (PCCL) and mean costs. Data from the DGVS-DRG project with §21-KHEntgG cost data from a total of 57 hospitals from 2018 and 2019 served as the basis. Endoscopic costs were taken from cost center group 8 of the InEK cost matrix and plausibility checked., Results: A total of 122,514 cases with exactly one GAEN service were identified. Statistically equal costs were shown in 30 of 47 service groups. In 10 groups, the cost difference was not relevant (<10%). Cost differences >10% existed only for EGD with variceal therapy, insertion of a self-expanding prosthesis, dilatation/bougienage/exchange with PTC/PTCD in place, non-extensive ERCP, endoscopic ultrasound in the upper gastrointestinal tract, and colonoscopy with submucosal or full thickness resection, or foreign object removal. PCCL differed in all but one group., Conclusion: Gastroenterology endoscopy services provided as part of inpatient care but potentially performable on an outpatient basis are predominantly equally expensive for day cases as for patients with a length of stay greater than one day. The disease severity is lower. Calculated §21-KHEntgG cost data thus form a reliable basis for the calculation of appropriate reimbursement for hospital services to be provided as outpatient services under the AOP in the future., Competing Interests: Keiner der Autoren erklärt einen Interessenkonflikt. Die inspiring-health GmbH (Markus Rathmayer, Wolfgang Heinlein, Tobias Wagner, Michael Wilke) erfasst und berechnet auf Honorarbasis die §-21-KHEntgG-Datensätze der am DGVS-DRG-Projekt teilnehmenden Häuser., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background:  Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the standard-procedure in Asia for the treatment of early gastric cancer (EGC) within defined criteria. In Europe, this technique is being used more and more frequently. In the context of risk constellations (submucosal invasion, lymphangioinvasion, poorly differentiated carcinoma), the occurrence of lymph node metastases is possible. We defined a low-risk group (differentiated, mucosal EGC without ulceration and vascular infiltration, size independent) to investigate the endoscopic outcome and the long-term course of this special group with excellent prognosis., Patients and Methods:  Patients with untreated low-risk EGC were included in this retrospective evaluation. Patient data (age, gender distribution), carcinoma parameters (number, size, location, Paris-Classification), histological parameters, resection data (including en bloc resection, R-status), follow-up (including local recurrence, survival) and complication data were evaluated., Results:  In 55 patients, ESD was used to remove 61 low-risk EGC. In 93.4 %, the En-bloc resection succeeded, in 91.8 % of cases, an R0 status was documented. In 8 cases (13.1 %), intervention-dependent complications occurred: 5 delayed bleeding (8.2 %), two microperforations (3.3 %, no surgery required) and one non-ST-elevated myocardial infarciation (1.6 %). During the follow-up (mean: 54.3 months) there were 4 cases (6.6 %) of local recurrences, of which at least 2 could be successfully treated endoscopically. The other 2 patients died after repeated endoscopy before the first control. Overall, 4 patients (7.8 %) died during the follow up, none of them tumor-associated. In 9 patients (16.4 %) syn- or metachronous lesions were detected, all of which could be treated endoscopically. Lymphnode metastases did not occur., Conclusion:  In the low-risk group that we defined, a high rate of en bloc and R0 resections were achieved with ESD; the detected local recurrences could be treated endoscopically. Metastases were not detected, no tumor-associated patient deaths occured. ESD is, therefore, recommended for this group as a standard therapy. The study provides no data on the endoscopic and clinical follow up in the presence of risk factors of both mucosal and other EGCs from the so-called Expanded Group (including lymphangio-invasion, submucosal invasive EGC, poorly differentiated G3 carcinomas)., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background  In the German hospital reimbursement system (G-DRG) endoscopic procedures are listed in cost center 8. For reimbursement between hospital departments and external providers outdated or incomplete catalogues (e. g. DKG-NT, GOÄ) have remained in use. We have assessed the cost for endoscopic procedures in the G-DRG-system. Methods  To assess the cost of endoscopic procedures 74 hospitals, annual providers of cost-data to the Institute for the Hospital Remuneration System (InEK) made their data (2011 - 2015; § 21 KHEntgG) available to the German-Society-of-Gastroenterology (DGVS) in anonymized form (4873 809 case-data-sets). Using cases with exactly one endoscopic procedure (n = 274 186) average costs over 5 years were calculated for 46 endoscopic procedure-tiers. Results  Robust mean endoscopy costs ranged from 230.56 € for gastroscopy (144 666 cases), 276.23 € (n = 32 294) for a simple colonoscopy, to 844.07 € (n = 10 150) for ERCP with papillotomy and plastic stent insertion and 1602.37 € (n = 967) for ERCP with a self-expanding metal stent. Higher costs, specifically for complex procedures, were identified for University Hospitals. Discussion  For the first time this catalogue for endoscopic procedure-tiers, based on § 21 KHEntgG data-sets from 74 InEK-calculating hospitals, permits a realistic assessment of endoscopy costs in German hospitals. The higher costs in university hospitals are likely due to referral bias for complex cases and emergency interventions. For 46 endoscopic procedure-tiers an objective cost-allocation within the G-DRG system is now possible. By international comparison the costs of endoscopic procedures in Germany are low, due to either greater efficiency, lower personnel allocation or incomplete documentation of the real expenses., Competing Interests: Interessenkonflikt: M. Rathmayer, W. Heinlein, C. Reiß, M. Wilke haben als Berater bei der Durchführung der Kostenstudie und deren Auswertung ein Beratungshonorar von der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Gastroenterologie, Verdauungs- und Stoffwechselerkrankungen e. V. erhalten., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)