[Recommendations for the Utilization of Claims Data During a Pandemic: Lessons Learned from the Project EgePan-Unimed of the Netzwerk Universitätsmedizin (NUM)]. / Potentiale von und Empfehlungen zur Nutzung von GKV Routinedaten in einer pandemischen Versorgungslage ­ Erfahrungen aus dem Projekt egePan-Unimed des Netzwerk Universitätsmedizin (NUM).

For appropriate response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and for obtaining answers to various relevant research questions, empirical data are required. Claims data of health insurances are a valid data source in such a situation. Within the project egePan-Unimed of the Netzwerk Universitätsmedizin (NUM) we investigated five COVID-19-related research questions using German claims data of statutory health insurances. We studied the prevalence and relevance of risk factors for a severe course of COVID-19, the background incidence of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and myocarditis, the frequency and symptoms of post-COVID as well as the care of people with a psychiatric condition during the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on these cases, context-specific recommendations regarding the use of German claims data for future pandemics or other public health emergencies were derived, namely that the utilization of established and interdisciplinary project teams enables a timely project start and furthermore, meta-analytic methods are a valuable way to pool aggregated results of claims data analyses when data protection regulations do not allow a consolidation of data sets from different statutory health insurances. Under these circumstances, claims data are a readily available and valid data source of empirical evidence base necessary for public health measures during a pandemic.

Effect of clinical peer review on mortality in patients ventilated for more than 24 hours: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although clinical peer review is a well-established instrument for improving quality of care, clinical effectiveness is unclear. METHODS: In a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial, we randomly assigned 60 German Initiative Qualitätsmedizin member hospitals with the highest mortality rates in ventilated patients in 2016 to intervention and control groups. The primary outcome was hospital mortality rate in patients ventilated fore more than 24 hours. Clinical peer review was conducted in intervention group hospitals only. We assessed the impact of clinical peer review on mortality using a difference-in-difference approach by applying weighted least squares (WLS) regression to changes in age-adjusted and sex-adjusted standardised mortality ratios (SMRs) 1 year before and 1 year after treatment. Recommendations for improvement from clinical peer review and hospital survey data were used for impact and process analysis. RESULTS: We analysed 12 058 and 13 016 patients ventilated fore more than 24 hours in the intervention and control hospitals within the 1-year observation period. In-hospital mortality rates and SMRs were 40.6% and 1.23 in intervention group and 41.9% and 1.28 in control group hospitals in the preintervention period, respectively. The groups showed similar hospital (bed size, ownership) and patient (age, sex, mortality, main indications) characteristics. WLS regression did not yield a significant difference between intervention and control groups regarding changes in SMRs (estimate=0.04, 95% CI= -0.05 to 0.13, p=0.38). Mortality remained high in both groups (intervention: 41.8%, control: 42.1%). Impact and process analysis indicated few perceived outcome improvements or implemented process improvements following the introduction of clinical peer review. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not provide evidence for reductions in mortality in patients ventilated for more than 24 hours due to clinical peer review. A stronger focus on identification of structures and care processes related to mortality is required to improve the effectiveness of clinical peer review.

[The role of university hospitals in regional health care management for coping with the COVID-19 pandemic]. / Die Rolle der Universitätskliniken im regionalen medizinischen Versorgungsmanagement zur Bewältigung der COVID-19 Pandemie.

INTRODUCTION: The complex and dynamic situation in the current pandemic requires a regionally coordinated and interconnected cooperation between the different stakeholders within the health care system, such as the inpatient sector or the public health service. The aim of this study is to analyze health care management during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 with a focus on regional networking and communication structures. METHODS: As part of the BMBF-funded project "egePan Unimed", an online questionnaire on pandemic management was sent to the boards of all 35 German university hospitals in November 2020. The questionnaire focused on the core topics of regional networking, crisis management, data exchange, and communication with political stakeholders. The questionnaire consisted of 37 closed and three open-ended questions. After piloting, the invitation to the survey was extended three times by mail and once by telephone. RESULTS: The results (n=25, response 71.4%) show that 68% of the clinics surveyed were connected to representatives from the inpatient sector and 86% to representatives from the public health service. Networking with representatives from the outpatient sector was less common (26%). Of the university hospitals surveyed, 84% had a leadership role in a regional COVID-19 pandemic management effort. Data exchange with regional hospitals in the course of pandemic management took place at 75% of the participating university hospitals and with supra-regional hospitals at 67% of the clinics surveyed. CONCLUSION: To manage regional medical care during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, university hospitals often assumed a coordinating role in the complex pandemic care process. There were often structured collaborations with regional clinics and health departments and comparatively few cooperations with the outpatient care sector. However, this cooperation has the potential to prevent overcrowding in hospitals.