[Does the Innovation Fund Improve Healthcare Provision? A Critical Assessment of the Status of Implementing Successful Innovation Fund Projects into Healthcare Practice]. / Verbessert der Innovationsfonds die Versorgung? Eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme zum Stand der Implementierung erfolgreicher Innovationsfondsprojekte in die Versorgungspraxis.

INTRODUCTION: Since 2015, the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA)'s Innovation Fund has been supporting projects in health services research and new health service models ("Neue Versorgungsformen", NVF). By the end of 2022, 211 projects in the NVF category had been funded. A key objective is the transfer of successful projects into standard care. This article analyzes previous projects regarding their incorporation into routine care based on transfer recommendations of the Innovation Fund Committee ("Innovationsausschuss" IA). METHOD: Descriptive analysis of all projects completed by August 1, 2023 with transfer recommendations in the "NVF" funding stream. Presentation by topic, project duration, time until IA transfer decision, categorization, and number of institutions and organizations (recipients) addressed per project, their feedback published on the G-BA website, response rates per recipient group, and a content classification and interpretation of exemplary feedback. Recommendations based on the results and their discussion in an expert workshop. RESULTS: Out of 57 NVF projects, 17 had a transfer recommendation. A total of 57 feedback responses were received from a total of 431 recipients addressed by the IA across these projects. Response rates varied significantly. One-third of inquiries to the G-BA and its member organizations received a response (31%), while only every fifth inquiry to federal states (18%) and professional societies (18%) got a response. Less than one in ten inquiries to the Federal Ministry of Health (8%), administrative bodies (6%), and the German Medical Association (0%) received a response. Project-specific feedback within a recipient group was often contradictory or limited to regional scope. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The transfer process reveals significant structural and procedural obstacles regarding the incorporation of projects evaluated as successful into routine health care. To ensure that funding from the innovation fund is most effectively used, there needs to be a realistic chance of successful transfer of positive project outcomes into routine care. The DNVF recommends stronger involvement of rule-competent institutions, mandatory publication of responses, structured moderation of the transfer process, expanding types of selective contracts, financing of implementation phases and of studies drawing on results across successful NVF projects.

Healthcare professionals' perceptions of impacts of the Covid-19-pandemic on outpatient care in rural areas: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Measures to manage the COVID-19 pandemic have led to impacts on healthcare systems and providers worldwide. Outpatient healthcare professionals (HCPs) provide the majority of patient care. Insight into their experiences during a pandemic is rare. Therefore, we explored how primary and secondary care HCPs in a rural area in Germany experienced their work during the pandemic and what health-related outcomes they perceived in their patients. In this context, we also examined the impact on access to and utilization of healthcare and working conditions. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative interview study with outpatient HCPs. We recruited by e-mail, telephone, professional networks and personal contacts. Data were collected between August 2020 and January 2021. All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analysed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Our sample consisted of 28 HCPs (15 family physicians, 7 cardiologists, and 6 non-physician assistants, 12 female) from Saxony-Anhalt, Germany. HCPs experienced fewer consultations as well as cancellations by hospitals and secondary care physicians, especially at the beginning of the Covid-19-pandemic, while they continued throughout to provide outpatient care. They quickly adopted changes in practice organisation and healthcare provision. There was a shift towards telephone consultations, home visits as well as unconventional consultations e.g. through the practice window. Family physicians used personal relationships to support utilization of healthcare and to avoid health-related effects. Social tension and burden seemed to interact with a perceived lack of preparedness, the pandemic-related changes in their working condition as well as access to and utilization of healthcare. Chronic disease monitoring was postponed, which could have consequences in the course of disease of patients. HCPs experienced effects on patients' psychological well-being. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates the impacts of Covid-19-pandemic on outpatient care in rural areas and emphasizes its importance. HCPs experienced impacts on access to and utilization of healthcare, working conditions and health-related outcomes. Health policy should create a framework for healthcare to support outpatient care in rural areas with a looming undersupply of primary and secondary care in order to maintain healthcare and reduce pandemic impacts.

[Characteristics of Innovation Fund-supported Intervention Studies: Review and Document Analysis of Study Protocols, Publications and Final Reports]. / Charakteristika von durch den Innovationsfonds geförderten Interventionsstudien: Review und Dokumentenanalyse von Studienprotokollen, Publikationen und Abschlussberichten.

This prospectively registered review characterizes 50 intervention studies from the 1st wave of the Innovation Fund based on study protocols or original articles, among other sources. The mainly (randomized) controlled intervention studies included predominantly adults/seniors in ambulatory care without a regional focus and analyzed treatment processes, clinical and patient outcomes as outcomes. The substantial lack of study protocols and methodological details (e. g., sample size planning) reveals (avoidable) methodological problems regarding the scientific quality of the funded studies.

An evidence map of systematic reviews on models of outpatient care for patients with chronic heart diseases.

BACKGROUND: Chronic heart disease affects millions of people worldwide and the prevalence is increasing. By now, there is an extensive literature on outpatient care of people with chronic heart disease. We aimed to systematically identify and map models of outpatient care for people with chronic heart disease in terms of the interventions included and the outcomes measured and reported to determine areas in need of further research. METHODS: We created an evidence map of published systematic reviews. PubMed, Cochrane Library (Wiley), Web of Science, and Scopus were searched to identify all relevant articles from January 2000 to June 2021 published in English or German language. From each included systematic review, we abstracted search dates, number and type of included studies, objectives, populations, interventions, and outcomes. Models of care were categorised into six approaches: cardiac rehabilitation, chronic disease management, home-based care, outpatient clinic, telemedicine, and transitional care. Intervention categories were developed inductively. Outcomes were mapped onto the taxonomy developed by the COMET initiative. RESULTS: The systematic literature search identified 8043 potentially relevant publications on models of outpatient care for patients with chronic heart diseases. Finally, 47 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria, covering 1206 primary studies (including double counting). We identified six different models of care and described which interventions were used and what outcomes were included to measure their effectiveness. Education-related and telemedicine interventions were described in more than 50% of the models of outpatient care. The most frequently used outcome domains were death and life impact. CONCLUSION: Evidence on outpatient care for people with chronic heart diseases is broad. However, comparability is limited due to differences in interventions and outcome measures. Outpatient care for people with coronary heart disease and atrial fibrillation is a less well-studied area compared to heart failure. Our evidence mapping demonstrates the need for a core outcome set and further studies to examine the effects of models of outpatient care or different interventions with adjusted outcome parameters. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42020166330).