Why should stakeholders consider the effect of tensions in collaborative innovation in healthcare-lessons learned from surveying integrated care projects in Germany.

INTRODUCTION: The German Innovation Fund supports projects that aim to improve healthcare through integration and intersectoral collaboration. As is typical for collaborative innovation projects, partners often pursue different objectives, which can create tensions and affect outcomes. The study aims to explore the causes and effects of tensions in integrated care projects and how frameworks, processes, and management should be designed to deal with tensions and achieve their productive effects. METHODS: In an online survey we asked participants about the causes, effects, and management of tensions and their implications for integrated care projects (n = 58 completed questionnaires). We applied bivariate descriptive statistics to analyse the quantitative data. RESULTS: Tensions between stakeholders, caused by deep-seated differences and the design of the project frameworks, often affect the course and outcome of innovative integrated care projects. However, through appropriate conflict management and negotiation processes such tensions can be managed constructively and lead to better outcomes. DISCUSSION: Tension is usually seen as something unpleasant to be avoided and/or overcome. In fact, tensions can have positive effects, the importance of which remains little understood. Developing appropriate frameworks for managing and integrating different perspectives are key factors in unlocking the positive potential of tensions in integrated care projects.

Cost-effectiveness of use of 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine among adults in Germany.

OBJECTIVES: Despite national recommendations for use of pneumococcal vaccines, rates of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) remain high in Germany. New pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) with expanded coverage have the potential to reduce the pneumococcal disease burden among adults. METHODS: Using a Markov model, we evaluated the lifetime outcomes/costs comparing 20-valent PCV (PCV20) with standard of care (SC) vaccinations for prevention of CAP and IPD among adults aged ≥60 years and at-risk adults aged 18-59 years in Germany. PCV20 also was compared with sequential vaccination with 15-valent PCV (PCV15) followed by PPSV23 in a scenario analysis. RESULTS: Over the course of a lifetime (82 years), use of PCV20vs. SC would prevent 54,333 hospitalizations, 26368 outpatient CAP cases, 10946 disease-related deaths yield 74,694 additional life-years (LYs), while lowering total medical costs by 363.2 M €. PCV20 remained cost saving (i.e. dominant) versus SC even in numerous sensitivity analyses, including a sensitivity analysis assuming moderate effectiveness of the SC pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine against noninvasive pneumococcal CAP. In several scenario analyses and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, PCV20 was also cost-saving compared toPCV15 PPSV23 vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: One dose of PCV20 among adults aged ≥60 years and adults aged 18-59 years with moderate- and high-risk conditions wouldsubstantially reduce pneumococcal disease, save lives, and be cost saving compared with SC.

Challenges and Solutions for the Benefit Assessment of Tumor-Agnostic Therapies in Germany.

OBJECTIVES: Precision medicine is increasingly important in cancer treatment. Tumor-agnostic therapies are used regardless of tumor entity because they target specific biomarkers in tumors. In Germany, the benefit assessment of oncological pharmaceuticals has traditionally been entity specific. Thus, the assessment of tumor-agnostic therapies leaves stakeholders with various challenges. Our aim was to systematically identify challenges and possible solutions for the benefit assessment of therapies in tumor-agnostic indications using a 2-step sequential qualitative approach. METHODS: To identify relevant challenges, we conducted qualitative interviews with different stakeholders who were involved in previous benefit assessments of tumor-agnostic therapies in Germany. To identify possible solutions for these challenges, we systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the websites of European health technology assessment bodies for relevant literature. RESULTS: We identified 9 categories of challenges of which the following were deemed particularly relevant: the absence of direct comparative studies, challenges regarding the use of basket studies and indirect comparisons, challenges in determining the appropriate comparative therapy in a tumor-agnostic indication, and challenges on the system side. Seven categories of solutions were identified, including an increased use of real-world evidence, making conditional decisions in the context of systematic reassessments, splitting the field of application, and finding (new) ways to design and analyze basket studies. CONCLUSION: A range of possible solutions, which can help to meet the identified challenges in Germany, have been found. Future research should investigate the acceptance and feasibility of these solutions.

Quality of Postoperative Pain Management After Maxillofacial Fracture Repair.

BACKGROUND: Effective pain management is an essential component in the perioperative care of surgical patients. However, postoperative pain after maxillofacial fracture repair and its optimal therapy has not been described in detail. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a prospective cohort study, 95 adults rated their pain on the first postoperative day after maxillofacial fracture repair using the questionnaire of the Quality Improvement in Postoperative Pain Management (QUIPS) project. Quality Improvement in Postoperative Pain Management allowed for a standardized assessment of patients' characteristics and pain-related parameters. RESULTS: Overall, the mean maximal pain and pain on activity (numeric rating scales) were significantly higher in patients with mandibular fractures than in patients with midface fractures (P = 0.002 and P = 0.045, respectively). In patients with mandibular fractures, a longer duration of surgery was significantly associated with higher satisfaction with pain intensity (P = 0.015), but was more frequently associated with postoperative vomiting (P = 0.023). A shorter duration of surgery and an absence of preoperative pain counseling in these patients were significantly correlated to desire for more pain medication (P = 0.049 and P = 0.004, respectively). Patients with mandibular fractures that received opioids in the recovery room had significantly higher strain-related pain (P = 0.017). In patients with midface fractures, a longer duration of surgery showed significantly higher levels of decreased mobility (P = 0.003). Patients receiving midazolam for premedication had significantly less minimal pain (P = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with mandibular fractures seem to have more postoperative pain than patients with midface fractures. Monitoring of postsurgical pain and a procedure-specific pain-treatment protocol should be performed in clinical routine.