Development and implementation of a treatment pathway to reduce coronary angiograms - lessons from a failure.

BACKGROUND: The rates of coronary angiograms (CA) and related procedures (percutaneous intervention [PCI]) are significantly higher in Germany than in other Organisation for Economic Co-ordination and Development (OECD) countries. The current guidelines recommend non-invasive diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CHD); CA should only have a limited role in choosing the appropriate revascularisation procedure. The aim of the present study was to explore whether improvements in guideline adherence can be achieved through the implementation of regional treatment pathways. We chose four regions of Germany with high utilisation of CAs for the study. Here we report the results of the concomitant qualitative study. METHODS: General practitioners and specialist physicians (cardiologists, hospital-based cardiologists, emergency physicians, radiologists and nuclear medicine specialists) caring for patients with suspected CHD were invited to develop regional treatment pathways. Four academic departments provided support for moderation, provision of materials, etc. The study team observed session discussions and took notes. After the development of the treatment pathways, 45 semi-structured interviews were conducted with the participating physicians. Interviews and field notes were transcribed verbatim and underwent qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Pathway development received little support among the participants. Although consensus documents were produced, the results were unlikely to improve practice. The participants expressed very little commitment to change. Although this attempt clearly failed in all study regions, our experience provides relevant insights into the process of evidence appraisal and implementation. A lack of organisational skills, ignorance of current evidence and guidelines, and a lack of feedback regarding one's own clinical behaviour proved to be insurmountable. CA was still seen as the diagnostic gold standard by most interviewees. CONCLUSIONS: Oversupply and overutilisation can be assumed to be present in study regions but are not immediately perceived by clinicians. The problem is unlikely to be solved by regional collaborative initiatives; optimised resource planning within the health care system combined with appropriate economic incentives might best address these issues.

Shared Decision Making, Diagnostic Evaluation, and Pharmacotherapy in Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes is one of the most important widespread diseases worldwide. In Germany, nearly one in five persons over age 65 has type 2 diabetes. The German National Disease Management Guideline for Type 2 Diabetes (NDMG; in German: Nationale Versorgungsleitlinie, NVL) contains updated recommendations for the diagnostic evaluation and pharmacotherapy of this disease as well as information about specific groups of people for whom early detection may be useful. METHODS: The guideline has been updated, chapter by chapter, since 2018. Its recommendations are based on systematically searched and evaluated scientific evidence, the clinical expertise of a multidisciplinary panel of experts, and patient perspectives. RESULTS: The new chapter on shared decision making includes a description of a structured approach that can be used when individual treatment goals have not been achieved. The diagnosis of diabetes newly requires at least two abnormally elevated laboratory values: e.g., fasting plasma glucose ≥ 126 mg/dL (≥ 7.0 mmol/L), HbA1c ≥ 6.5 % (≥ 48 mmol/mol) and/or casual plasma glucose ≥ 200 mg/dL (≥ 11.1 mmol/L). Cardiovascular and renal risks are to be considered in the choice of drug. Studies have shown that, in persons with cardiovascular disease, treatment with GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1, glucagon-like peptide-1) or SGLT2 inhibitors (SGLT2, sodium-glucose co-transporter-2) was less likely than the comparison intervention to lead to certain patient-relevant endpoints, including all-cause mortality (OR = 0.88 and 0.84, respectively), hospitalization for heart failure (SGLT2 inhibitors: OR = 0.65), and worsening of renal function (OR = 0.61 and 0.59, respectively). CONCLUSION: Current evidence continues to support the recommendations on pharmacotherapy of the 2021 guideline. The Guideline Group did not find evidence of adequate certainty to inform recommendations about the screening of persons at risk, HbA1c target values, or screening for sequelae and comorbidities. Better evidence on these matters would be desirable.

Selecting and defining indicators for diabetes surveillance in Germany.

Mainly because of the large number of people affected and associated significant health policy implications, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) is developing a public health surveillance system using diabetes as an example. In a first step to ensure long-term and comparable data collection and establish efficient surveillance structures, the RKI has defined a set of relevant indicators for diabetes surveillance. An extensive review of the available literature followed by a structured process of consensus provided the basis for a harmonised set of 30 core and 10 supplementary indicators. They correspond to the following four fields of activity: (1) reducing diabetes risk, (2) improving diabetes early detection and treatment, (3) reducing diabetes complications, (4) reducing the disease burden and overall costs of the disease. In future, in addition to the primary data provided by RKI health monitoring diabetes surveillance needs to also consider the results from secondary data sources. Currently, barriers to accessing this data remain, which will have to be overcome, and gaps in the data closed. The RKI intentends to continuously update this set of indicators and at some point apply it also to further chronic diseases with high public health relevance.