[17 years of the critical incident reporting and learning system "jeder-fehler-zaehlt.de" for primary care: Analysis of reports]. / 17 Jahre hausärztliches Fehlerberichts- und Lernsystem "jeder-fehler-zaehlt.de" ­ Analyse des Berichtsbestandes.

BACKGROUND: The topic of patient safety has been a subject of much discussion since the end of the last millennium. Ensuring patient safety is a central challenge in health care. An important tool to raise awareness for and learn from adverse events and thus promote patient safety are error-reporting and learning systems (Critical Incident Reporting System = CIRS). METHODS: More than 17 years after its establishment, the CIRS "jeder-fehler-zaehlt.de" (JFZ) for German primary care has undergone a revision in terms of content and technology. The revised web-based system can be used for reporting as well as for classifying and analyzing incident reports. During this process, a descriptive analysis of the current report inventory was carried out, with a focus on serious medication errors. This included all 781 valid incident reports received between September 2004 and December 2021. RESULTS: In 576 of the 781 reports (73.8%), the GP practice was directly involved in the critical incident. Among error types, process errors predominated (79.8% of the classifications, 99.1% of the reports) compared with knowledge and skills errors (20.2% of the classifications, 39.7% of the reports). Communication errors (63.0%) were the most common contributing factor to critical incidents, followed by flaws in tasks and measures (39.7%). Serious and permanent patient harm was rarely reported (8.3% of the reports), whereas temporary patient harm was more common (40.3% of the reports). Incident reports about medication errors with at least serious patient harm included, in particular, substances that affected blood clotting, corticosteroids, and opiates. DISCUSSION: Our results complement the rates that are reported internationally for error types, patient harm, and contributing factors. Serious but preventable adverse events, so-called never events, are frequently associated with the medication process in both JFZ reports and the literature. CONCLUSION: Critical incident reporting systems cannot provide accurate information about the frequency of errors in health care, but they can offer important insights into, for example, serious medication errors. Therefore, they offer both employees and healthcare institutions an opportunity for individual and institutional learning.

[General practitioners' perspectives on the perceived effectiveness of the disease management programs for type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease: Results of a focus group study]. / Die wahrgenommene Effektivität der Disease Management Programme für Diabetes mellitus Typ 2 und Koronare Herzkrankheit aus Sicht von Hausärzt*innen ­ Ergebnisse einer Fokusgruppenstudie.

BACKGROUND: The majority of patients in disease management programs (DMPs) for type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and coronary heart disease (CHD) in Germany are enrolled by their general practitioner (GP). The aim of this study was, in the context of upcoming DMP expansions, to elicit GPs' current experiences and opinions regarding the perceived effectiveness and acceptance of the DMPs T2DM and CHD, as well as to determine beneficial and hindering aspects of the implementation of these programs from a GP's perspective. METHODS: In August and September 2020, 20 GPs of teaching practices of the University Hospital Cologne with experiences in DMPs were interviewed in semi-structured focus group discussions. Their expectations, attitudes and opinions regarding the DMPs T2DM and CHD were evaluated and analyzed according to the content-structuring qualitative content analysis by Kuckartz. RESULTS: The DMP T2DM was rated as generally positive by the respondents due to the structured treatment including regular foot and eye examinations, close patient contacts and perceptions of improved health outcomes. The DMP CHD was rated more negatively by the respondents because of a high and partly unnecessary documentation workload and limited therapeutic freedom, leading to a perceived ineffectiveness for patients' health outcomes. Thus, there was a discrepancy in the perceived effectiveness of the examined DMPs, causing a lower acceptance of the DMP CHD. Therefore, some of the respondents tended to enroll fewer patients into the DMP CHD or to drop out of the DMP CHD. DISCUSSION: In order to increase the acceptance and sustainability of DMPs some elements of the DMP CHD as well as the remuneration and the documentation need to be reconsidered. Additionally, future studies on the acceptance of DMPs should differentiate between different DMPs in order to generate valid results.

Use of the FallAkte Plus System as an IT Infrastructure for the North Rhine-Westphalian General Practice Research Network: Mixed Methods Usability Study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care research networks can generate important information in the setting where most patients are seen and treated. However, this requires a suitable IT infrastructure (ITI), which the North Rhine-Westphalian general practice research network is looking to implement. OBJECTIVE: This mixed methods research study aims to evaluate (study 1) requirements for an ITI and (study 2) the usability of an IT solution already available on the market, the FallAkte Plus (FA+) system for the North Rhine-Westphalian general practice research network, which comprises 8 primary care university institutes in Germany's largest state. METHODS: In study 1, a survey was conducted among researchers from the institutes to identify the requirements for a suitable ITI. The questionnaire consisted of standardized questions with open-ended responses. In study 2, a mixed method approach combining a think-aloud approach and a quantitative survey was used to evaluate the usability and acceptance of the FA+ system among 3 user groups: researchers, general practitioners, and practice assistants. Respondents were asked to assess the usability with the validated system usability scale and to test a short questionnaire on vaccination management through FA+. RESULTS: In study 1, five of 8 institutes participated in the requirements survey. A total of 32 user requirements related primarily to study management were identified, including data entry, data storage, and user access management. In study 2, a total of 36 participants (24 researchers and 12 general practitioners or practice assistants) were surveyed in the mixed methods study of an already existing IT solution. The tutorial video and handouts explaining how to use the FA+ system were well received. Researchers, unlike practice personnel, were concerned about data security and data protection regarding the system's emergency feature, which enables access to all patient data. The median overall system usability scale rating was 60 (IQR 33.0-85.0), whereby practice personnel (median 82, IQR 58.0-94.0) assigned higher ratings than researchers (median 44, IQR 14.0-61.5). Users appreciated the option to integrate data from practices and other health care facilities. However, they voted against the use of the FA+ system due to a lack of support for various study formats. CONCLUSIONS: Usability assessments vary markedly by professional group and role. In its current stage of development, the FA+ system does not fully meet the requirements for a suitable ITI. Improvements in the user interface, performance, interoperability, security, and advanced features are necessary to make it more effective and user-friendly. Collaborating with end users and incorporating their feedback are crucial for the successful development of any practice network research ITI.