@article{SeyfriedReith2020,
  author    = {Seyfried, Markus and Reith, Florian},
  title     = {Strength of weakness},
  series = {Journal of higher education policy and management},
  volume    = {43},
  journal   = {Journal of higher education policy and management},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {1360-080X},
  doi       = {10.1080/1360080X.2020.1812802},
  pages     = {298 -- 314},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {The paper investigates quality management in teaching and learning in higher education institutions from a principal-agent perspective. Based on data gained from semi-structured interviews and from a nation-wide survey with quality managers of German higher education institutions, the study shows how quality managers position themselves in relation to their perception of the interests of other actors in higher education institutions. The paper describes the various interests and discusses the main implications of this constellation of actors. It argues that quality managers, although they may be considered as rather weak actors within the higher education institution, may be characterised as having a strength of weakness due to diverging interests of their principals.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SalzwedelHauboldBarnacketal.2018,
  author    = {Salzwedel, Annett and Haubold, Kathrin and Barnack, Beate and Reibis, Rona Katharina and V{\"o}ller, Heinz},
  title     = {Indikatoren der Ergebnisqualit{\"a}t kardiologischer Rehabilitation Ergebnisse einer Delphi-Befragung von Mitgliedern der Deutschen Gesellschaft f{\"u}r Pr{\"a}vention und Rehabilitation von Herz- und Kreislauferkrankungen e. V. (DGPR)},
  series = {Die Rehabilitation : Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Praxis und Forschung in der Rehabilitation},
  volume    = {58},
  journal   = {Die Rehabilitation : Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Praxis und Forschung in der Rehabilitation},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Thieme},
  address   = {Stuttgart},
  issn      = {0034-3536},
  doi       = {10.1055/s-0044-101048},
  pages     = {31 -- 38},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Ziel der Studie Die vorliegende Untersuchung beinhaltete die explorative Erfassung potenzieller Indikatoren der Ergebnisqualit{\"a}t der kardiologischen Rehabilitation (CR) f{\"u}r Patienten unter 65 Jahren. Methoden In einer 4-stufigen webbasierten Delphi-Befragung (04-07/2016) von in der CR t{\"a}tigen {\"A}rzten[2] , Psychologen und Sport-/Physiotherapeuten wurden Parameter der k{\"o}rperlichen Leistungsf{\"a}higkeit, der Sozialmedizin, der subjektiven Gesundheit und kardiovaskul{\"a}re Risikofaktoren hinsichtlich ihrer Eignung als Qualit{\"a}tsindikator bewertet. Ergebnisse Von 44 vorgegebenen wie auch von den Teilnehmern vorgeschlagenen Parametern wurden 21 Parameter (48\%), die H{\"a}lfte davon psychosoziale Faktoren, als potenzielle Qualit{\"a}tsindikatoren ausgew{\"a}hlt, wobei lediglich f{\"u}r das Rauchverhalten, den Blutdruck, das LDL-Cholesterin und die max. Belastbarkeit im Belastungs-EKG ein Konsens (Zustimmung>75\% der Befragten) erzielt wurde. Schlussfolgerung Die Wahl der Qualit{\"a}tsindikatoren durch die Experten erfolgte mehrheitlich mit nur geringer Einigkeit. Eine klinische und wissenschaftliche Evaluierung der gew{\"a}hlten Parameter ist daher zwingend erforderlich.},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{PohlenzNiedermeier2019,
  author    = {Pohlenz, Philipp and Niedermeier, Frank},
  title     = {The Bologna Process and the harmonisation of higher education systems in other world regions},
  series = {Innovation : the European journal of social sciences},
  volume    = {32},
  journal   = {Innovation : the European journal of social sciences},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {1351-1610},
  doi       = {10.1080/13511610.2019.1637248},
  pages     = {481 -- 494},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {The Bologna Process has inspired harmonisation strategies for higher education systems in other parts of the world. However, developments in other contexts are not much under review in the European debate. The present article describes the case of Southeast Asia and the attempt to promote harmonisation of its higher education systems. It further compares the processes in ASEAN and the European Higher Education Area to then discuss open questions for future comparative research. To do so the authors re-contextualise data from a study in ASEAN against the background of future research needs in the field of higher education harmonisation.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{MarxPhilipsBassengeetal.2016,
  author    = {Marx, R. and Philips, H. and Bassenge, D. and Nosper, M. and Roehrig, B. and Linck-Eleftheriadis, S. and Strandt, G. and Salzwedel, Annett and Pabst, F.},
  title     = {Progress of Rehabilitation for Cardiac Patients Depending on the Degree of Self-Sufficiency at Admission},
  series = {Die Rehabilitation : Zeitschrift f{\~A}¼r Praxis und Forschung in der Rehabilitation},
  volume    = {55},
  journal   = {Die Rehabilitation : Zeitschrift f{\~A}¼r Praxis und Forschung in der Rehabilitation},
  publisher = {Thieme},
  address   = {Stuttgart},
  issn      = {0034-3536},
  doi       = {10.1055/s-0041-111524},
  pages     = {34 -- 39},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Zusammenfassung Ziel der Studie: Es existieren kaum Publikationen uber das Rehabilitationsergebnis kardiologischer Patienten unter Berucksichtigung eines erhohten medizinischen, pflegerischen und therapeutischen Versorgungsaufwands (Barthel-Index70). Es war Ziel der Studie, die in einem Zeitraum von 2 Jahren aufgenommen Rehabilitanden (n=387) einer gesetzlichen Krankenkasse, aufgeteilt in jeweils eine Gruppe selbstversorgender und versorgungsaufwandiger Patienten, bezuglich ihrer Unterschiede in dem Rehabilitationsergebnis zu uberprufen. Methodik: In Abhangigkeit des Versorgungsaufwandes wurde das Rehabilitationsergebnis sowie Unterschiede im Verlauf hinsichtlich der korperlichen Leistungsfahigkeit, des emotionalen Status und der Aktivitaten des taglichen Lebens, gemessen an Barthelindex, FIM-Index, HADS-Werten, Komplikationen, Funktionsuntersuchungen, Belastungstests, Rehabilitationsdauer und Entlassungsform, gepruft. Ergebnisse: Die in Hinblick auf medizinischen, pflegerischen und therapeutischen Aufwand versorgungsaufwandigen Patienten waren alter, langer im Krankenhaus und in der Rehabilitation, sie hatten mehr Komplikationen und deutlich mehr Begleiterkrankungen. Sie wurden haufiger ins Akutkrankenhaus verlegt. Sie hatten eine hohere Steigerungsrate der Selbstversorgungsindices und eine relevante Steigerung bei den Belastungstests. Schlussfolgerung: Ein hoher Versorgungsaufwand multimorbider kardiologischer Patienten ist keine Kontraindikation gegen eine Rehabilitation, da auch bei dieser Patientengruppe die tragerspezifischen Rehabilitationsziele erreicht wurden. Abstract Introduction: There are hardly any publications about the outcome of cardiac rehabilitation considering patients with an increased need for medical, nursing and therapeutic care. The aim of this study, which consecutively included n=387 statutory health insurance inpatients over a period of 2 years, was to find out differences in outcome in self-care patients (Barthel index>70) as compared to patients with a need for complex care (Barthel index70). Methods: Rehabilitation outcomes concerning physical capacity, emotional status and activities of daily living as measured by Barthel index, FIM index, HADS, clinical complications, exercise test, duration of rehabilitation and form of dismission were analyzed and compared between both groups. Results: The inpatients with a Barthel index 70 at admission were older, had a longer stay in hospital and in rehabilitation, developed more complications and more often suffered from concomitant diseases. They were readmitted to hospital more often. They showed a comparatively higher increase in indices of self-care and a significant increase in physical performance tests. Conclusion: Higher medical care expenses of multimorbid cardiac inpatients are no contraindication against rehabilitation, because even in this group the specific rehabilitation aims of the healthcare payers can be reached.},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{RoehrigSalzwedelLinckEleftheriadisetal.2015,
  author    = {R{\"o}hrig, Bernd and Salzwedel, Annett and Linck-Eleftheriadis, Sigrid and V{\"o}ller, Heinz and Nosper, Manfred},
  title     = {Outcome Based Center Comparisons in Inpatient Cardiac Rehabilitation Results from the EVA-Reha (R) Cardiology Project},
  series = {Die Rehabilitation : Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Praxis und Forschung in der Rehabilitation},
  volume    = {54},
  journal   = {Die Rehabilitation : Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Praxis und Forschung in der Rehabilitation},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Thieme},
  address   = {Stuttgart},
  issn      = {0034-3536},
  doi       = {10.1055/s-0034-1395556},
  pages     = {45 -- 52},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Background: So far, for center comparisons in inpatient cardiac rehabilitation (CR), the objective outcome quality was neglected because of challenges in quantifying the overall success of CR. In this article, a multifactorial benchmark model measuring the individual rehabilitation success is presented. Methods: In 21 rehabilitation centers, 5 123 patients were consecutively enrolled between 01/2010 and 12/2012 in the prospective multicenter registry EVA-Reha (R) Cardiology. Changes in 13 indicators in the areas cardiovascular risk factors, physical performance and subjective health during rehabilitation were evaluated according to levels of severity. Changes were only rated for patients who needed a medical intervention. Additionally, the changes had to be clinically relevant. Therefore Minimal Important Differences (MID) were predefined. Ratings were combined to a single score, the multiple outcome criterion (MEK). Results: The MEK was determined for all patients (71.7 +/- 7.4 years, 76.9 \% men) and consisted of an average of 5.6 indicators. After risk adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical baseline parameters, MEK was used for center ranking. In addition, individual results of indicators were compared with means of all study sites. Conclusion: With the method presented here, the outcome quality can be quantified and outcome-based comparisons of providers can be made.},
  language  = {de}
}