Psychological stress of general practitioners in the care of patients with palliative care needs: an exploratory study.

BACKGROUND: In Germany, general practitioners play a pivotal role in palliative care provision. Caring for patients with palliative care needs can be a burden for general practitioners, highlighting the importance of self-care and mental health support. This study aimed to explore the role of palliative care in general practitioners' daily work, the stressors they experience, their coping mechanisms, and the potential benefits of Advance Care Planning in this context. METHODS: An exploratory approach was employed, combining a short quantitative survey with qualitative interviews. The analysis was based on a structuring qualitative content analysis, following a deductive-inductive procedure and integrating the Stress-Strain Model and Lazarus' Transactional Model of Stress and Coping. We recruited eleven general practitioners to take part in the study. RESULTS: General practitioners viewed palliative care as integral to their practice but faced challenges such as time constraints and perceived expertise gaps. Societal taboos often hindered conversations on the topic of death. Most general practitioners waited for their patients to initiate the topic. Some general practitioners viewed aspects of palliative care as potentially distressing. They used problem-focused (avoiding negative stressors, structuring their daily schedules) and emotion-focused (discussions with colleagues) coping strategies. Still, general practitioners indicated a desire for specific psychological support options. Advance Care Planning, though relatively unfamiliar, was acknowledged as valuable for end-of-life conversations. CONCLUSIONS: Palliative care can be associated with negative psychological stress for general practitioners, often coming from external factors. Despite individual coping strategies in place, it is advisable to explore concepts for professional psychological relief. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not registered.

Detecting Medication Risks among People in Need of Care: Performance of Six Instruments.

INTRODUCTION: Numerous tools exist to detect potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) and potential prescribing omissions (PPO) in older people, but it remains unclear which tools may be most relevant in which setting. OBJECTIVES: This cross sectional study compares six validated tools in terms of PIM and PPO detection. METHODS: We examined the PIM/PPO prevalence for all tools combined and the sensitivity of each tool. The pairwise agreement between tools was determined using Cohen's Kappa. RESULTS: We included 226 patients in need of care (median (IQR age 84 (80-89)). The overall PIM prevalence was 91.6 (95% CI, 87.2-94.9)% and the overall PPO prevalence was 63.7 (57.1-69.9%)%. The detected PIM prevalence ranged from 76.5%, for FORTA-C/D, to 6.6% for anticholinergic drugs (German-ACB). The PPO prevalences for START (63.7%) and FORTA-A (62.8%) were similar. The pairwise agreement between tools was poor to moderate. The sensitivity of PIM detection was highest for FORTA-C/D (55.1%), and increased to 79.2% when distinct items from STOPP were added. CONCLUSION: Using a single screening tool may not have sufficient sensitivity to detect PIMs and PPOs. Further research is required to optimize the composition of PIM and PPO tools in different settings.

Exploring physicians and patients' perspectives for current interventions on thyroid nodules using a MCDA method.

BACKGROUND: The detection of thyroid cancer has rapidly increased over last few decades without an increase in disease specific mortality. Several studies claim that the diagnose of thyroid nodules through routine ultrasound imaging is often the trigger for cascade effects leading to unnecessary follow-up over many years or to invasive treatment. The objective of this study was to explore physicians' and patients' insights and preferences regarding the current interventions on thyroid nodules. METHODS: An online survey was developed using a comprehensive multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework, the EVIdence based Decision-Making (EVIDEM). The EVIDEM core model used in this study encompassed 13 quantitative criteria and four qualitative criteria. Participants were asked to provide weights referring to what matters most important in general for each criterion, performance scores for appraising the interventions on thyroid nodules and their consideration of impact of contextual criteria. Normalized weights and standardized scores were combined to calculate a value contribution across all participants, additionally differences across physicians and patients' group were explored. RESULTS: 48 patients and 31 physicians were included in the analysis. The value estimate of the interventions on thyroid nodules reached 0.549 for patients' group and 0.5 was reported by the physicians' group, compared to 0.543 for all participants. The highest value contributor was 'Comparative effectiveness' (0.073 ± 0.020). For the physicians' group, 'Comparative safety' (0.050 ± 0.023) was given with higher value. And for the patients' group, 'Type of preventive benefits' (0.059 ± 0.022) contributed more positively to the value estimation. 51% participants considered 'Population priorities and access' having a negative impact on the interventions of nodules.66% participants thought that the 'system capacity' had a negative impact. CONCLUSION: Our study shows participants' preferences on each criterion, i.e., physician indicated keeping the interventions safe and effective more important, patients indicated quality of life after receiving interventions more important. Through comparison among participants, differences have been highlighted, which can make better communication between physicians and patients. This study provides a supportive decision-making for healthcare providers when they explored the interventions on thyroid nodules.

The quality of COPD care in German general practice-A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a common health problem to be dealt with in primary care. Little is known about the quality of care provided for patients with COPD in Germany. Therefore, we wanted to assess the current quality of care delivered by a primary care network (PCN) for patients with COPD. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in collaboration with a primary care network (PCN). All patients of the PCN aged 40 years and older with a diagnosis of COPD were identified through electronic health records (EHR). A set of quality indicators (QIs) developed in accordance with current COPD-guidelines were appraised through numerical data retrieved from the EHR. RESULTS: In total, 2,568 patients with COPD were identified. Their mean age was 67 (SD±12) years, 49% were male. Thirty-five percent had a parallel diagnosis of asthma. There was no documentation of any spirometry for 54% of patients; 29% had a spirometry within the previous year. An influenza vaccination was documented for 37% within the preceding 12 months; 12% received a pneumococcal vaccination in the last 6 years. Smoking status was documented for 44% within the last year. CONCLUSION: The quality of care for patients with COPD in the PCN seemed suboptimal, despite the presence of a Disease Management Program (DMP). This finding is likely to apply widely to German general practice. Quality assessment through currently available EHR data was challenging due to non-standardized and insufficient documentation.

[Evidence and practice: How do primary care physicians evaluate screening interventions? A questionnaire study]. / Zwischen Evidenz und Praxis: Wie bewerten Hausärzte Früherkennungsmaßnahmen? Eine Fragebogenstudie.

BACKGROUND: Patients receiving a screening intervention have to be informed about risks and benefits. On the part of the physician, it requires the understanding of statistical evidence and statistical literacy. OBJECTIVES: Do general practitioners (GPs) make different recommendations on screening interventions if they only rely on statistics compared to their decisions in everyday practice? Are the decisions relying on statistics and the decisions made in everyday practice consistent with official recommendations? Does the way of presenting the numbers (table versus pictogram) affect the decision? METHODS: Online survey among German GPs. The GPs were asked to make recommendations for three different screening scenarios which were based on statistical evidence of existing screening interventions. To avoid bias, statistics were not presented in relation to the actual diseases. The numbers were presented in either a table or a pictogram. Afterwards, the GPs were asked for their recommendations on the same screening interventions in everyday practice. RESULTS: Forty-three GPs were surveyed. Compared to everyday medical practice, participants were less likely to recommend a screening intervention when being confronted with the underlying statistical evidence (F (1, 3)=104.83, p=.002, ηpartial2=.97). Most of the decisions in everyday practice were consistent with official recommendations, while their decisions relying on statistics were more likely to deviate from them (everyday practice, M=1.79, SD=0.77; scenario, M=1.44, SD=0.80; t (42)=-2.29, p=.03). The way the numbers were presented did not affect the decision (t (127)=-1.83, p=.07). CONCLUSIONS: In everyday practice, GPs' screening recommendations do not seem to be based on statistical evidence. Presumably they would be more reluctant to recommend screening interventions if they knew the statistical evidence.

[Antihypertensive pharmacotherapy of patients in primary care with either a statutory or private health insurance]. / Antihypertensive medikamentöse Therapie von gesetzlich und privat versicherten Patienten in der Primärversorgung.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In Germany, hypertension has a prevalence of about 20%. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality are closely associated with hypertension. Therefore, antihypertensive medical treatment is of crucial importance. Currently, five groups of drugs for the medical treatment of hypertension are available: diuretics, beta-receptor blockers, calcium antagonists, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and angiotensin II receptor blockers. Besides medical considerations for the treatment of hypertension costs of treatment and other economic aspects become more and more important. Within this article, the antihypertensive treatment of insurants of the statutory health insurance and the private health insurance is compared with regard to the medical treatment and associated costs. METHODS: The analyzed data derive from the general practice morbidity research network CONTENT (CONTinuous morbidity registration Epidemiologic NeTwork). The implementation of this network is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Research and Education (BMBF) for a continuous registration of health-care utilization, morbidity, course of disease, and outcome parameters within primary care. RESULTS: Altogether 4,842 patients from the participating general practitioners were regularly treated with antihypertensive drugs in 2007 and corresponding episodes were documented within electronic medical records. The proportion of insurants of the private health insurance was 7.6%. The costs of the antihypertensive medical treatment within the total sample in 2007 constituted 1.03 million Euros overall and per patient on average 212.82 Euros. Although the regarded sample of private health insurants was less morbid and the sum of defined daily doses (DDDs) within the observation period was notably lower (582.6 vs. 703.1; p < 0.0001), the annual therapy costs of the private health insurants compared to the statutory health insurants were 35.2% higher (280.29 Euros vs. 207.29 Euros; p < 0.0001). Hence, costs per DDD for antihypertensive medical treatment for private health insurants were 63.2% higher than for statutory health insurants. This refers to the great proportion of angiotensin II receptor blockers as well as the low proportion of generic drugs prescribed for private health insurants. CONCLUSION: Antihypertensive treatment with original drugs and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers is an expensive option. Based on the actual state of knowledge it must be questioned critically whether this constitutes a superior treatment option concerning the potential for lowering high blood pressure levels and organ protection.