Patients pathways before and after treatments in emergency departments: A retrospective analysis of secondary data in Germany.

Increasing emergency department (ED) utilization induces considerable pressure on ED staff and organization in Germany. Reasons for certain ED attendances are seen partly in insufficient continuity of care outside of hospitals. To explore the health care patterns before and after an ED attendance in Germany, we used claims data from nine statutory health insurance funds, covering around 25 % of statutory health insurees (1). We descriptively analyzed ED attendances for adult patients in 2016 according to their sociodemographic characteristics and diagnoses (2). Based on the ED attendance as initial event, we investigated health care provider utilization 180 days before and after the respective ED treatment and are presented by means of Sankey diagrams. In total, 4,757,536 ED cases of 3,164,343 insured individuals were analyzed. Back pain was the most frequent diagnosis in outpatient ED cases (5.0 %), and 80.2 % of the patients visited primary care physicians or specialists 180 days before and 78.8 % 180 days after ED treatment. Among inpatient cases, heart failure (4.6 %) was the leading diagnosis and 74.6 % used primary care physicians or specialists 180 days before and 65.1 % 180 days after ED treatment. The ED re-attendance slightly increased for back pain (4.9 % to 7.9 %) and decreased for heart failure (13.4 % to 12.6 %).

[Concept-dependent and -independent care effects of site-specific care concepts using "pain" as an example]. / Konzeptabhängige und -unabhängige Versorgungseffekte standortspezifischer palliativer Versorgungskonzepte am Beispiel "Schmerz".

BACKGROUND: Structures of palliative care, cross-sectoral transitions and care pathways of patients with palliative care needs were investigated at two sites. The systematic comparison of similarities and differences using the topic of 'pain' as an example is intended to provide information on the extent to which these are related to site-specific palliative care concepts (integrated and cooperative). METHODS: The study follows a mixed-methods design. In addition to a document analysis of anonymised patient records (n = 774), expert interviews (n = 20), as well as interviews with patients, relatives (n = 60) and focus groups (n = 12), were conducted. RESULTS: The systematic comparative analysis provides evidence for concept-independent commonalities (e.g. sociodemographic distribution, aggravated pain treatment) as well as concept-dependent differences (e.g. care pathways, facilitated continuous symptom control through integrated care structures) in the context of integrated or cooperative palliative care. DISCUSSION: Commonalities and differences with regard to the topic of pain, as focused on here, and its organisational management become tangible as effects of the respective organisational structure (= concept-dependent) as well as concept-independent external influencing factors.

Screening and assessment for post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS), guidance by personal pilots and support with individual digital trainings within intersectoral care: a study protocol of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Because the clinical patterns and symptoms that persist after a COVID-19 infection are diverse, a diagnosis of post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS) is difficult to implement. The current research project therefore aims to evaluate the feasibility and the practicability of a comprehensive, interdisciplinary, and cross-sectoral treatment program consisting of a low-threshold online screening and holistic assessment for PACS. Furthermore, it aims to evaluate digital interventions and the use of so-called personal guides that may help to facilitate the recovery of PACS. METHODS: This German study consists of a low-threshold online screening for PACS where positively screened participants will be supported throughout by personal pilots. The personal pilots are aimed at empowering patients and helping them to navigate through the study and different treatment options. Patients will then be randomly assigned either to an intervention group (IG) or an active control group (ACG). The IG will receive a comprehensive assessment of physiological and psychological functioning to inform future treatment. The ACG does not receive the assessment but both groups will receive a treatment consisting of an individual digital treatment program (digital intervention platform and an intervention via a chatbot). This digital intervention is based on the needs identified during the assessment for participants in the IG. Compared to that, the ACG will receive a more common digital treatment program aiming to reduce PACS symptoms. Importantly, a third comparison group (CompG) will be recruited that does not receive any treatment. A propensity score matching will take place, ensuring comparability between the participants. Primary endpoints of the study are symptom reduction and return to work. Secondary outcomes comprise, for example, social participation and activities in daily life. Furthermore, the feasibility and applicability of the online screening tool, the holistic assessment, digital trainings, and personal pilots will be evaluated. DISCUSSION: This is one of the first large-scale studies to improve the diagnosis and the care of patients with PACS by means of empowerment. It is to be evaluated whether the methods utilized can be used for the German and international population. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05238415; date of registration: February 14, 2022.

Evaluation of a cross-sectoral care intervention for families with psychosocial burden: a study protocol of a controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Family risk factors, e.g. low socioeconomic status or parental mental health disorders, can affect children's health and development. Thus, targeted preventive services for families with psychosocial burden are crucial. The German Early Childhood Intervention (ECI) program is a preventive approach that aims to strengthen parent's resources by supportive services. However, research has revealed that only a proportion of the families considered to have substantial risk factors access the ECI program. To increase pediatricians' skills in identifying risk factors, and to improve the cross-sectoral collaboration between relevant professionals and the referral of families to supportive services, the PATH-intervention (Pediatric Attention To Help) was developed. The PATH-intervention includes interprofessional quality circles and a one-day training program for the pediatricians. This study aims to evaluate this complex cross-sectoral care intervention for families with psychosocial burden. METHODS: Using a prospective quasi-experimental, controlled (matched-pair), longitudinal mixed-method design, we will compare families under treatment of pediatricians trained in the PATH-intervention with families under treatment of a control group of pediatricians. Participating families are asked to complete online-surveys. As a primary outcome, we will examine the use of supportive services of the ECI by burdened families. Secondary outcomes are the proportion of correctly identified families with psychosocial burden by the pediatricians, as well as information provision and motivation of the families to use the supportive services. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness ratio will be investigated. In the process evaluation, we will qualitatively explore the acceptance of the PATH-intervention of all involved stakeholders and the treatment fidelity of the trained pediatricians. DISCUSSION: This study will determine whether the PATH-intervention enables the pediatricians to identify and recommend supportive services to burdened families, as well as the families' use of the supportive services of the ECI. Qualitative data will give insight into the acceptance of the intervention from the perspective of all stakeholders and the treatment fidelity. Results of this study could be the starting point for the broader implementation of the PATH-intervention as standard care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS): DRKS00023461 (3rd December 2020); WHO UTN: U1111- 260-6575.

Promoting Integrated Care through a Global Treatment Budget: A Qualitative Study in German Mental Health Care using Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation Theory.

INTRODUCTION: Since 2003, as a means of enabling integrated care the German mental health care system has offered the innovative option of agreeing a Global Treatment Budget (GTB, also known as a regional psychiatric budget or innovative flexible and integrative forms of treatment FIT) with health insurers and regional care providers across sectors. Despite promoting legal frameworks and positive evidence on improving quality of patient care, this model has not spread widely. The aim of this study is to identify inhibiting and facilitating factors for the innovation diffusion. THEORY AND METHODS: We conducted expert interviews with 19 actors from nine German regions involved in GTBs, using a self-developed questionnaire based on Rogers' theory on innovation diffusion extended by the innovation system approach. Interviews were analysed applying qualitative content analysis. Code categories were built deductively operationalising Rogers' theory and inductively from the data generated. RESULTS: Observability of the innovation was perceived as good, but trialability, reversibility, compatibility with regular care structures as low, and thus the perceived risks of adoption as high. Complexity up to implementation is high, caused by numerous individuals and stakeholder groups involved. Diffusion took place in environments of strong individuals with venturesomeness, opinion leadership, and informal networking. As favourable framework conditions the monopoly and non-profit position of hospitals in well-defined care regions were identified. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Diffusion of integrated care could be accelerated by dissolving the multi-actor constellation, changing the communication strategy, and adapting the legal framework.

Training courses on hereditary breast and ovarian cancer to strengthen cross-sectoral care in underserved areas.

OBJECTIVE: To strengthen cross-sectoral care by disseminating specialized knowledge about hereditary breast and ovarian cancer across underserved areas. METHODS: We report on a training course about genetic counseling and testing of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer patients for gynecologists from certified cancer centers. In total, 50 gynecologists attended the course which was offered once annually between 2017 and 2019. Before and after the course, participants were asked to answer a self-assessment questionnaire and completed the training with a multiple-choice test. The results of the self-assessments and knowledge tests were analyzed to steadily improve the training. RESULTS: The self-assessments imply a perceived increase in certainty regarding the inclusion criteria for specialized genetic counseling, pedigree analysis, and contents of the initial consultation. Both the knowledge tests and self-assessments showed that participants had difficulties in interpreting and differentiating between age-specific and lifetime risks. CONCLUSION: The courses successfully conveyed knowledge necessary to identify patients at risk and to provide timely genetic analyses even in rural areas. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The results are a promising basis for creating additional training courses addressing specialists in hospitals and gynecological practices. Further education of physicians might improve cross-sectoral cooperation and thereby enable specialized care supply in rural areas.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a community-based mental health care programme (GBV) for people with severe mental illness in Germany: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The community-based mental health care programme GBV is based on the British Community Mental Health Teams and the Dutch Flexible Assertive Community Treatment model. In addition, the programme offers crisis-intervention services. A special feature of this integrated care programme is the initial standardised assessment process regarding empowerment, unmet care needs, and psychosocial functioning, used to verify the need for such a comprehensive form of care. The project evaluates the assessment process and analyses the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of GBV compared to treatment as usual. METHODS: This randomised, controlled study includes five assessments over 2 years. In twelve regions in Germany, 1000 patients with severely impaired psychosocial functioning and unmet care needs will be recruited. Study eligibility relies on an indication for GBV based on the results of the initial assessment. The primary outcome is improved self-reported empowerment. Further outcomes include improved treatment satisfaction and subjective quality of life, reductions in patients' unmet needs and illness-related clinical and social impairment, and an improved cost-effectiveness ratio of the resources used (from the perspectives of both statutory health insurance and the national economy). In addition, the GBV's effects on the burden and quality of life of informal caregivers of patients will be investigated. DISCUSSION: The study's results are expected to provide information on whether the community-based mental health care programme GBV contributes to improving mental health care provision in Germany. In addition, the study will show whether the GBV successfully overcomes the weaknesses that former research has identified regarding a German integrated care programme. Such improvement is particularly expected with respect to the semi-structured assessment within GBV. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trial Register, DRKS00019086 . Registered on 3 January 2020.

Challenges to cross-sectoral care experienced by professionals working with patients living with low back pain: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: While interdisciplinary, cross-sectoral collaboration promotes the effectiveness of rehabilitation programmes for persons with low back pain, challenges remain for this process. Few studies have explored challenges to cross-sectoral care as experienced by all the involved professionals across sectors during a course of treatment. The aim of this study was to explore challenges to cross-sectoral care as experienced by professionals involved in the course of treatment for patients with low back pain. METHOD: This semi-structured, qualitative interview study included 28 health care professionals and 8 social workers who interacted with patients with low back pain. A systematic text condensation method was used to analyse data. Nvivo was used to structure and thematise the interview data. RESULTS: Professionals expressed challenges in relation to a lack of collaboration, knowledge sharing and acknowledgement of one other and they appeared to differ in their approach to patients with pain or patients with limited function. Additional challenges included time constraints, availability and subjective approaches to managing guidelines for low back pain. A lack of a common information technology (IT) registration system and limited knowledge of the work of other professions disrupted knowledge sharing among sectors. DISCUSSION: The different approach to patients with pain or patients with limited function challenged mutual understanding and collaboration among professionals. The lack of mutual understanding and knowledge of each other's work appeared to create an environment of disrespect and distrust among professionals that generated feelings of a lack of acknowledgement from other health care professionals. CONCLUSION: To provide cross-sectoral care, we must ensure that professionals work together towards transparent and informed transitions from one sector to the next. This study contributes to the existing literature by presenting challenges to cross-sectoral care that are experienced by the diverse groups of professionals involved in a course of treatment for patients with low back pain.

Experiences and challenges to cross-sectoral care reported by patients with low back pain. A qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Cross-sectoral care comprises interdisciplinary and coordinated efforts for patients with complex care needs involving various competencies and professions across the primary health care sector, hospital sector, and municipal services. Cross-sectoral care can increase the effectiveness of rehabilitation programmes, but the treatment courses often lack coherence. Establishing successful treatment pathways requires a better understanding of the health care challenges faced by patients with low back pain. The aim of this study was to explore how patients with low back pain experience cross-sectoral care. METHOD: A qualitative interview study including 25 patients with low back pain. Patients were recruited in connection with their appointment at the Spine Centre of Southern Denmark. Recruitment stopped when the interviews no longer added new knowledge to the subject. The data were analysed using a systematic text condensation approach. RESULTS: Patients with low back pain experienced cross-sectoral care to be fragmented, with episodes lacking collaboration, information, and acknowledgement of their problem. They desired recognition of having a serious back problem and of being more than the diagnosis itself. Patients found it hard to keep track of their course of treatment due to a perceived lack of organisational support and collaboration between professionals. The patients called for more information about the treatment plan and the reasons for further referral in order to better understand and manage their treatment. CONCLUSION: Patients' experiences indicate a need for a stronger person-centred approach in cross-sectoral care, in which the individual's experiences of living with low back pain are taken into account.

[FIDUSweb version 2.0 : An electronic platform to establish a cooperative university eye network]. / FIDUSweb in der Version 2.0 : Möglichkeiten einer elektronischen Plattform zur Etablierung eines kooperativen, universitären Augennetzwerks.

BACKGROUND: Due to the increasing digitalization in ophthalmology, increasingly more documentation and diagnostic data are becoming electronically available. In order to improve patient care beyond sectoral boundaries, electronic cooperation portals were introduced in Münster and Homburg, which serve the networking with ophthalmologists in private practice. METHOD: This article reports on the implementation of an electronic cooperation portal at the University Eye Hospitals in Münster and Homburg in 2015 and 2016. RESULTS: The FIDUSweb represents a data protection-compliant cooperation portal that can be easily set up. By implementing it as a web portal all terminal equipment and also electronic patient files can be networked. Particularly important functions are the transmission of medical reports in real time, appointment booking functions, the transmission of imaging data and shared treatment documentation. CONCLUSION: Cross-sectoral care can greatly benefit from the use of the FIDUSweb, especially in digital and multimodal ophthalmology.

Diverging Awareness of Postoperative Delirium and Cognitive Dysfunction in German Health Care Providers.

PURPOSE: Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) appears in up to 30% of patients suffering from postoperative delirium (POD). Both are associated with higher mortality and postoperative complications, prolonged hospital stays, and increased costs. Multi-modal models with pre-admission risk reduction counselling, perioperative monitoring, and training of multidisciplinary patient care providers have been shown to decrease the prevalence of both. The aim of our study is to understand how far those measures are known and implemented in routine care and to detect potential gaps in the current practice regarding risk communication and information flow between involved caregivers for patients at risk for POD/POCD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: As part of a multicenter study, seven semi-structured focus group (FG) discussions with nurses and physicians from tertiary care hospitals (surgery, anesthesiology, and orthopedics, n=31) and general practitioners (GPs) in private practice (n=7) were performed. Transcribed discussions were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: POD is present above all in the daily work of nurses, whereas physicians do not perceive it as a relevant problem. Physicians report that no regular risk assessment or risk communication was performed prior to elective surgery. Information about POD often gets lost during hand-offs and is not regularly reported in discharge letters. Thus, persisting cognitive dysfunction is often missed. The importance of standardized documentation and continuous education concerning risks, screening, and treatment was emphasized. The often-suggested pre-OP medication adjustment was seen as less important; in contrast, avoiding withdrawal was regarded as far more important. CONCLUSION: Altogether, it seems that standards and available best practice concepts are rarely implemented. In contrast to physicians, nurses are highly aware of delirium and ask for standardized procedures and more responsibility. Therefore, raising awareness regarding risks, screening tools, and effective preventive measures for POD/POCD seems an urgent goal. Nurses should have a central role in coordination and care of POD to prevent the risk for POCD.

Improving continuity of patient care across sectors: study protocol of a quasi-experimental multi-centre study regarding an admission and discharge model in Germany (VESPEERA).

BACKGROUND: Hospitalisations are a critical event in the care process. Insufficient communication and uncoordinated follow-up care often impede the recovery process of the patient resulting in a high number of rehospitalisations and increased health care costs. The overall aim of this study is the development, implementation and evaluation of a structured programme (VESPEERA) to improve the admission and discharge process. METHODS: We will conduct an open quasi-experimental multi-centre study with four intervention arms. A cohort selected from insurance claims data will serve as a control group reflecting usual care. The intervention will be implemented in 25 hospital departments and 115 general practices in 9 districts in Baden-Wurttemberg. Eligibility criteria for patients are: age > 18 years, hospital admission or hospitalisation, insurance at the sickness fund "AOK Baden-Wurttemberg", enrolment in general practice-centred care contract. Each study arm will receive different intervention components based on the point of study enrolment and the patient's medical need. The interventions comprise a) a structured assessment in the general practice prior to admission resulting in an admission letter b) a discharge conversation by phone between hospital and general practice, c) a structured assessment and care plan post-discharge and d) telephone monitoring for patients with a high risk of rehospitalisation. The assessments are supported by a software tool ("CareCockpit"), originally developed for structured case management programmes. The primary outcome (rehospitalisation due to the same indication within 90 days) and a range of secondary outcomes (rehospitalisation due to the same indication within 30 days; hospitalisations due to ambulatory care-sensitive conditions; delayed prescription of medication and medical products/ devices and referral to other health practitioner/s after discharge; utilisation of emergency or rescue services within 3 months; average care cost per year and patient participating in the VESPEERA programme) and quality indicators will be determined based on insurance claims data and CareCockpit data. Additionally, a patient survey on satisfaction with cross-sectoral care and health related quality of life will be conducted. DISCUSSION: Based on the results, area-wide implementation in usual care is well sought. This study will contribute to an improvement of cross-sectoral care during the admission and discharge process. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS00014294 on DRKS / Universal Trial Number (UTN): U1111-1210-9657, Date of registration 12/06/2018.

Patient safety, cost-effectiveness, and quality of life: reduction of delirium risk and postoperative cognitive dysfunction after elective procedures in older adults-study protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial (PAWEL Study).

BACKGROUND: Postoperative delirium is a common disorder in older adults that is associated with higher morbidity and mortality, prolonged cognitive impairment, development of dementia, higher institutionalization rates, and rising healthcare costs. The probability of delirium after surgery increases with patients' age, with pre-existing cognitive impairment, and with comorbidities, and its diagnosis and treatment is dependent on the knowledge of diagnostic criteria, risk factors, and treatment options of the medical staff. In this study, we will investigate whether a cross-sectoral and multimodal intervention for preventing delirium can reduce the prevalence of delirium and postoperative cognitive decline (POCD) in patients older than 70 years undergoing elective surgery. Additionally, we will analyze whether the intervention is cost-effective. METHODS: The study will be conducted at five medical centers (with two or three surgical departments each) in the southwest of Germany. The study employs a stepped-wedge design with cluster randomization of the medical centers. Measurements are performed at six consecutive points: preadmission, preoperative, and postoperative with daily delirium screening up to day 7 and POCD evaluations at 2, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Recruitment goals are to enroll 1500 patients older than 70 years undergoing elective operative procedures (cardiac, thoracic, vascular, proximal big joints and spine, genitourinary, gastrointestinal, and general elective surgery procedures). DISCUSSION: Results of the trial should form the basis of future standards for preventing delirium and POCD in surgical wards. Key aims are the improvement of patient safety and quality of life, as well as the reduction of the long-term risk of conversion to dementia. Furthermore, from an economic perspective, we expect benefits and decreased costs for hospitals, patients, and healthcare insurances. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00013311 . Registered on 10 November 2017.

Cross-sectoral cancer care: views from patients and health care professionals regarding a personal electronic health record.

Cross-sectoral cancer care is complex and involves collaboration from health care professionals (HCPs) across multiple sectors. However, when health information exchange (HIE) is not adequate, it results in impeded coordination and continuity of care. A web-based personal electronic health record (PEPA) under patients' control, providing access to personal health data across sectors, is being developed. Aim of this study was to explore perceived benefits and concerns. Using a qualitative approach, 10 focus groups were performed collecting views of three prospective user groups: patients with colorectal cancer (n = 12), physicians (n = 17) and other HCPs (n = 16). Representatives from different health sectors across the Rhine-Neckar region (Germany) participated. Data were audio- and videotaped, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. Our study shows that patients and HCPs expected a PEPA to enhance cross-sectoral availability of information, cross-sectoral cooperation and facilitate data management. Quality of cancer care was expected to be improved. Concerns were expressed in terms of data protection and data security. Concepts like a PEPA offer the chance to support HIE and avoid gaps of information in cross-sectoral cancer care. This may lead to improvements in coordination and continuity of care. Issues concerning data security and protection have to be addressed.