[Clinical risk management in german hospitals - does size really matter?]. / Strukturiertes Risikomanagement in Krankenhäusern - kommt es doch auf die Größe an?

PURPOSE: In the last years, German hospitals have implemented different measures to increase patient safety. Special importance has been attached to near miss reporting systems (critical incident reporting system, CIRS) as instruments for risk identification in health care, instruments that promise high potential for organisational learning. To gain insight into the current status of critical incident reporting systems and other instruments for clinical risk management, a survey among 341 hospitals was carried out in 2009. Questions covered a process of six steps: from risk strategy to methods for risk identification, to risk analysis and risk assessment, to risk controlling and risk monitoring. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Structured telephone interviews were conducted with 341 German hospitals, featuring in their statutory quality reports certain predefined key terms that indicated the concluded or planned implementation of clinical risk management. The main objective of those interviews was to check the relation between status/organisation of self-reported risk management and both operator (private, public, NPO) and size of hospital. RESULTS: The implementation of near miss reporting systems (CIRS) in German hospitals has been constantly rising since 2004: in 2009, 54 % of the interviewed hospitals reported an implemented CIRS; of these, 72 % reported the system to be hospital-wide. An association between CIRS and private, public or NPO-operator could not be detected (Fisher p = 1.000); however, the degree of CIRS implementation was significantly increasing with the size of the hospital, i.e., the number of beds (Fisher p = 0.008): only 38 % of the hospitals with less than 100 beds reported CIRS implementation against 52 % of those between 100 to 500 beds, and 67 % of those with more than 500 beds. While 62 % of the hospitals interviewed reported the maintenance of a risk management committee, only 14 % reported the implementation of risk analysing techniques. As to clinical risk management, 92 % of the hospitals see potential for internal improvement; 44 % have already communicated with external consultants. CONCLUSION: While identification of clinical risks with near miss and other incident reporting systems meets increasing acceptance, the learning potential based on incident reporting is not yet appropriately being used. There is a deficit regarding systematic and comprehensive risk assessment and controlling; this will have to be met by improving the organisational framework for clinical risk management.