RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Health Services Research (HSR) is a growing field in Germany, in which Organisational Health Services Research (OHSR) has emerged as a subfield. The aim of this scoping review was to provide an overview of the field of OHSR within HSR in Germany and to map systematically original contributions by describing the organisational setting, the research design, the research objectives and the theoretical underpinning. METHODS: A scoping review examined published abstracts from the 19th German Conference on Health Services Research 2020. Abstracts were included if (1) health care organisations, subunits or organisational processes were mentioned as research objects, and (2) if at least one out of five research perspectives from a recent German definition of OHSR was addressed. After intensive pilot screenings within a group of nine researchers, all abstracts were screened independently in three review teams with three researchers each, and data from included abstracts were extracted using content analysis based on a self-developed detailed coding scheme. RESULTS: Out of n=468 identified abstracts in German (84%) or English (16%) language, n=138 (29.5%) abstracts were included. The majority of included abstracts addressed acute care in hospitals (34.8%), reported results from observational studies (59.4%) and collected primary data (69.6%). There was a slightly higher use of quantitative (32.6%) than qualitative (24.6%) research methods with a considerable number of studies using more than one method (31.9%). An explicit reference to theory was made in 7.2% and 17.4% used the term 'organisation' or related terms explicitly in their abstract. DISCUSSION: This review provides a systematic but preliminary overview of the scope to which HSR in Germany addresses OHSR. The organisational perspective is considered extensively in HSR abstracts, but mostly implicitly. The research is reported largely free of theory which can reduce their explanatory power. Therefore, a research agenda, more awareness as well as education and better conceptualisation of OHSR topics within German HSR are needed.
RESUMO
Purpose: Substance use disorders (SUD) are a challenging comorbidity in patients with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) as they complicate diagnosis and therapy, especially when opioids are part of the therapeutic regimen. A definite diagnosis of opioid use disorder (OUD) in patients with CNCP on long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) is a prerequisite for effective and targeted therapy but may be complicated as some criteria of OUD might be attributed to the desire of the patient to relieve the pain. For instance, the desire to increase the dose can be based on both a SUD as well as inadequate pain therapy. Many scientific studies use standardized questions. Therefore, potential misunderstandings due to possible diagnostic overlaps often cannot be clarified. Methods: 14 qualitative guided interviews were conducted and analyzed (Kuckartz content analysis), with the intention to verify if patient's initial response to simple questions based on the wording of the DSM-5, as commonly used in research and practice, were consistent with the results of a more in-depth inquiry. Results: The results suggest that without in-depth investigation, there is a particular risk of false-positive assessment of the DSM-5 criteria for OUD when opioids are prescribed, especially when the questions are considered independently of chronic pain. The risk of a false-negative assessment has also been shown in isolated cases. Conclusion: Only after asking for and describing specific situations it was possible to determine whether the patient's positive or negative answers were based on a misunderstanding of the question. To avoid misdiagnosis, staff conducting DSM-5 interviews should be trained in pain-specific follow-up questions that may help to uncover diagnostic confounding.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Inappropriate drug prescriptions for patients with polypharmacy can have avoidable adverse consequences. We studied the effects of a clinical decision-support system (CDSS) for medication management on hospitalizations and mortality. METHODS: This stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized, controlled trial involved an open cohort of adult patients with polypharmacy in primary care practices (=clusters) in Westphalia-Lippe, Germany. During the period of the intervention, their medication lists were checked annually using the CDSS. The CDSS warns against inappropriate prescriptions on the basis of patient-related health insurance data. The combined primary endpoint consisted of overall mortality and hospitalization for any reason. The secondary endpoints were mortality, hospitalizations, and high-risk prescription. We analyzed the quarterly health insurance data of the intention- to-treat population with a mixed logistic model taking account of clustering and repeated measurements. Sensitivity analyses addressed effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and other effects. RESULTS: 688 primary care practices were randomized, and data were obtained on 42 700 patients over 391 994 quarter years. No significant reduction was found in either the primary endpoint (odds ratio [OR] 1.00; 95% confidence interval [0.95; 1.04]; p = 0.8716) or the secondary endpoints (hospitalizations: OR 1.00 [0.95; 1.05]; mortality: OR 1.04 [0.92; 1.17]; high-risk prescription: OR 0.98 [0.92; 1.04]). CONCLUSION: The planned analyses did not reveal any significant effect of the intervention. Pandemicadjusted analyses yielded evidence that the mortality of adult patients with polypharmacy might potentially be lowered by the CDSS. Controlled trials with appropriate follow-up are needed to prove that a CDSS has significant effects on mortality in patients with polypharmacy.