[Outpatient medical specialist care (ASV): A multiperspective study on status quo, challenges and perspectives]. / Ambulante Spezialfachärztliche Versorgung (ASV): eine multiperspektivische Studie zu Status quo, Herausforderungen und Perspektiven.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, the so-called ambulatory medical specialist care (ASV) was implemented in accordance with para. 116b of Book V of the German Social Code (SGB V), enabling physicians in outpatient practices and hospitals to treat patients with rare diseases or complex courses of disease in a uniform framework. The implementation, however, is slow. The Joint Federal Committee (G-BA) has therefore commissioned an evaluation of the ASV with the aim to examine the reasons for this and to provide recommendations for further development. METHODS: The health services research study "GOAL-ASV" (Innovation Fund, 01VSF19002) included a multi-perspective design with primary data collection as well as secondary data analyses. Data from the ASV service center and the central association of statutory health insurances and the notification forms of the extended state committees were analyzed. Data from the Robert Koch-Institute, the Federal Joint Committee, the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Funds and a literature database analysis were used in order to estimate the proportion of insured persons qualifying for ASV. Care was examined by analyzing pseudonymized routine data from the statutory health insurances using selected indicators. Participating and not participating physicians were asked to complete an online survey. RESULTS: Since the start of ASV, 615,531 insured persons have been treated in this form of care. At the time of analysis, 509 teams were operating, with 26,540 physicians treating 102,898 patients by the end of March 2021 in all indications. This comprises less than 9.8 %. of all approx. 1.05 million eligible patients. Especially in the case of rare diseases, a low willingness of participation can be seen. In addition, there was a relevant proportion of multiple uses of physicians within and outside ASV at 31 percent as well as indications of passive participation of doctors. We found significant regional differences in type and scope of the notification procedure as well as the implementation of teams with 13.4 teams per 1 million inhabitants in Schleswig-Holstein and no team in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Patient benefits (84 %), interdisciplinary (82 %) and cross-sectoral cooperation (75 %) were cited as motivations for participation. The main barriers reported by the respondents were the complex and laborious notification procedure (60 %), the administrative and documentation effort during participation (50 %), insufficient billing figures (49 %), and a small proportion of patients (32 %) with a consecutively unfavorable assessment of the cost to income ratio due to the current reimbursement system. DISCUSSION: Nearly ten years after its introduction, the ASV has not become established nationwide. The reasons for this probably are the complex notification procedure and the reimburesement system for rare diseases. In the case of rare diseases, the risk of underuse is becoming apparent. CONCLUSION: Strategies to further develop the ASV should, in particular, simplify the notification procedure and reduce the obstacles during participation. The remuneration system should take more account of the specific care required.

[Results of a Pilot Study to Assess Quality Indicators in Outpatient Cancer Care]. / Ergebnisse einer Pilotstudie zur Erfassung von Qualitätsindikatoren in der ambulanten onkologischen Versorgung.

AIMS: Indicators of process quality were developed for outpatient oncology care in Germany with the aim to advance quality monitoring and assurance. In this pilot study, data to assess these quality indicators (QI) were gathered and analyzed for the first time. METHODS: Data were retrieved from patient records in oncology practices using an online data tool. Data were collected by practice-internal and in 7 (wave 1), 9 (wave 2) and 7 (wave 3) practices, respectively, by an external documentalist. RESULTS: Altogether, 5,160 patient records from 37 oncology practices were analyzed. The adherence rates varied considerably between QI as well as between practices (0-100%). In summary, adherence rates were higher for QI of basis documentation (81%) than for therapy planning and implementation (72%), holistic care and psychosocial wellbeing (71%) or pain management (63%). CONCLUSION: The ranges and high standard deviations show a high spread of adherence rates of QI. However, except for pain management, 100% fulfilment of QI requirements in some practices suggests that adherence to QI is generally feasible. Data collection for QI is resource intensive (time and personnel). Yet, collecting and examining data for QI provides useful information about areas with potential for improvement. QI can help improve the quality of care in oncology.