gms | German Medical Science

61st Annual Meeting of the German Society of Neurosurgery (DGNC) as part of the Neurowoche 2010
Joint Meeting with the Brazilian Society of Neurosurgery on the 20 September 2010

German Society of Neurosurgery (DGNC)

21 - 25 September 2010, Mannheim

Unnecessary/usable/deadly needed? Quality management in neurosurgery

Meeting Abstract

Search Medline for

  • Andreas M. Stark - Klinik für Neurochirurgie im Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Deutschland
  • H. Maximilian Mehdorn - Klinik für Neurochirurgie im Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Deutschland

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurochirurgie. 61. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Neurochirurgie (DGNC) im Rahmen der Neurowoche 2010. Mannheim, 21.-25.09.2010. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2010. DocP1818

doi: 10.3205/10dgnc289, urn:nbn:de:0183-10dgnc2892

Published: September 16, 2010

© 2010 Stark et al.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( You are free: to Share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work, provided the original author and source are credited.



Objective: Quality management has the potential to significantly improve patient pathways in medical institutions. However, it also requires significant personal resources. The aim of this project was to evaluate our quality management system in terms of resources, structure and benefit for the clinical neurosurgical routine.

Methods: We have analyzed our quality management system which was established in 2006 according to the DIN EN ISO 9001:2000. The mainstays of the system are mistake reports, internal audits, and evaluation of external suppliers. Key processes were defined and assigned to Key data. Information is collected and analyzed yearly within the management review. External surveillance audits are performed every year.

Results: Between 2006 and 2010, the yearly estimated amount of mistake reports was as followed: 13, 84, 142, 82. Main problems reported could be assigned to patient transport, shortening of nursing staff and staff communication. The number of performed internal audits was as followed: 4, 2, 3, 3. First, the key processes (esp. operating rooms, outpatient clinic, regular ward, intensive care ward) were audited. Second, equipment management was audited. Evaluation of external services was evaluated continuously. The yearly number of evaluations performed was: 2, 3, 6 and 5. The number of key data parameters grew every year. Currently, 18 key data parameters are defined and analyzed within the management review.

Conclusions: The exact clinical effect of successful quality management is hard to estimate. Using mistake reports, internal audits, evaluation of external services and key data one can estimate the evolution of the system as well as positive effects on patient pathways. Quality management should be at least supervised if not mainly performed by physicians.