[Evaluation of electronic medical records from general practices using the example of the diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia: A qualitative feasibility study]. / Nutzung von Daten aus dem Praxisverwaltungssystem eines großen hausärztlichen Verbundes medizinischer Versorgungszentren am Beispiel der Diagnosestellung einer ambulant erworbenen Pneumonie ­ eine qualitative Machbarkeitsstudie.

BACKGROUND: Data collected by general practitioners (GPs) may provide potential for health services research. In this study, we investigated if clinical questions can be answered with GPs' electronic medical records (EMRs) by means of diagnosing community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). METHOD: Patients diagnosed with CAP, defined as ICD code J18.9, were identified in the fourth quarter of 2021. The data were derived from the EMR system (Medical Office®) of a central German association of 30 general practices, using three different approaches: 1. The integrated statistic tool was used to record whether patients were referred for radiological diagnostic confirmation. 2. Retrospectively, EMRs were evaluated manually by a doctor familiar with the EMR. 3. The raw data of the EMR system were extracted by automated export. The information obtained through the three types of access was compared. For each patient case, detailed comments on problems and specifics were documented and evaluated by qualitative content analysis (QCA) according to Mayring. RESULTS: In total, 164 patients diagnosed with CAP were identified. The numbers of documented radiological diagnostic confirmations varied between data approaches: While the manual evaluation of the EMRs revealed 60 referred patients, the statistics tool identified 38 of these cases. The export of the raw data identified 58 referrals to radiography after adjustment. According to QCA, there was a high variation in applied diagnostics and time of diagnosis. Referrals for radiography were made both before and after coding of the diagnosis. In case of hospitalization, X-rays were usually performed during the inpatient stay. Laboratory tests were performed as an alternative to radiography. There was also a high variation in the documentation of risk factors and diagnostic certainty. DISCUSSION: The statistics tool integrated into the EMR system is a quick way to perform simple queries but proved to be impracticable for complex questions. The EMRs provide detailed information but need to be evaluated manually. An automated data export from the raw data offers both detailed information and access to large volumes of data but requires complex preparation and appropriate IT expertise. CONCLUSION: Based on the example of diagnosed CAP in a GP setting, the use of data extracted from an EMR system seems to be feasible to answer simple clinical questions. However, it is necessary to adapt the data export, and a comparison with a small number of manually evaluated cases is useful to achieve valid results.

[Changes in the provision and utilization of health care in German primary care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic - A survey of patients in three federal states]. / Veränderungen in der Bereitstellung und Inanspruchnahme der Gesundheitsversorgung in deutschen Hausarztpraxen während der COVID-19-Pandemie ­ eine Befragung von Patient*innen in drei Bundesländern.

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic general practitioners (GP) practice teams were temporally confronted with major challenges which were accompanied by changes in practice organization and service provision. So far, little has been known about the views of patients who visited the GP practice for other than COVID-related reasons with regard to provision and use of GP services, the adjustments in the practice and the work of the practice team members. METHODS: The patient survey is a sub-study of the mixed-methods study VeCo-Praxis (GP healthcare for patients not suffering from COVID during the Corona pandemic) of the research practice network RESPoNsE (Research Practice Network East), which was conducted in the federal states of Berlin, Brandenburg and Thuringia. The questionnaire-based survey was carried out among patients who visited their GP practice in November 2022. The topics covered in the survey were developed by two focus groups consisting of 13 members of the RESPoNsE patient advisory board. The questionnaire was developed and piloted in a participatory approach with the RESPoNsE Patient Advisory Board. The results were analyzed descriptively using SPSS and discussed with the advisory board. RESULTS: 1,405 questionnaires from 37 practices were analyzed. 97% of respondents felt that the treatment they received at their GP practice during the COVID-19 pandemic was good. For the vast majority, appointments and acute consultations, prescriptions, laboratory tests, discussions of diagnostic results, routine follow-up check-ups and health checks were available to a sufficient extent. From the patients' perspective, the practices have successfully adapted to the challenges caused by COVID-19. Overall, the patients' trust in and their appreciation of the work of the practice staff have increased since the pandemic. Patients stated that GP practices should continue hygiene procedures, such as wearing a mask or keeping physical distance, in the future. DISCUSSION: Despite multiple reports of a significant decline in both provision and utilization of standard care in GP practices during the pandemic, our survey showed that the majority of patients felt that they received adequate GP care and were highly satisfied. The results should be interpreted against the background of possible selection bias. CONCLUSION: In this survey, GP patients were predominantly appreciative of GP care during the COVID-19 pandemic. The patients' assessment of the provision and use of GP services during the pandemic complements the corresponding perspective of GPs and medical practice assistants.

Utilization and consequences of CRP point-of-care-testing in primary care practices: a real-world multicentre observational study with 1,740 patient cases in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care tests (POCTs) for C-reactive protein can support clinical decision-making of general practitioners (GPs) but are not widely used in German general practices. AIM: To investigate the utilization of semi-quantitative CRP-POCTs in routine primary care. DESIGN & SETTING: Prospective observational study in 49 general practices in Germany (Nov/2022 to Apr/2023). METHOD: GPs were provided with CRP-POCTs and collected data for each CRP-POCT use using standardized data collection sheets. RESULTS: Data from 1,740 CRP-POCT uses were recorded. GPs employed CRP-POCTs mainly for patients with respiratory tract infections (RTIs, 70.9% of all cases) and to a lesser extent for gastrointestinal infections (GIs, 10.3%). In RTIs, CRP-POCTs were frequently used to distinguish between bacterial and viral aetiology (60.8%) and to guide decisions on antibiotic prescribing (62.8%). In GIs, CRP-POCTs were mainly used to rule out severe disease progressions (53.2%) and for decisions on further diagnostic procedures (45.6%). In RTIs, CRP-POCTs influenced antibiotic prescribing in 77.5 % of the cases (32.3% in favour vs. 45.2% waiver). In GIs, CRP levels mainly affected decisions on further diagnostic procedures. GPs reported that CRP-POCTs were helpful in 88.6% of all cases. CONCLUSIONS: When available, German GPs predominantly use semi-quantitative CRP-POCTs to guide decisions on antibiotic prescribing in patients with RTI. CRP-POCT use improves clinical decision-making and increases the GPs' clinical confidence.

GPs' Perspective on a Multimodal Intervention to Enhance Guideline-Adherence in Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections: A Qualitative Process Evaluation of the Multicentric RedAres Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trial.

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are among the most common reasons patients seeking health care and antibiotics to be prescribed in primary care. However, general practitioners' (GPs) guideline adherence is low. The RedAres randomised controlled trial aims to increase guideline adherence by implementing a multimodal intervention consisting of four elements: information on current UTI guidelines (1) and regional resistance data (2); feedback regarding prescribing behaviour (3); and benchmarking compared to peers (4). The RedAres process evaluation assesses GPs' perception of the multimodal intervention and the potential for implementation into routine care. We carried out 19 semi-structured interviews with GPs (intervention arm). All interviews were carried out online and audio recorded. For transcription and analysis, Mayring's qualitative content analysis was used. Overall, GPs considered the interventions helpful for knowledge gain and confirmation when prescribing. Information material and resistance were used for patient communication and teaching purposes. Feedback was considered to enhance reflection by breaking routines of clinical workup. Implementation into routine practice could be enhanced by integrating feedback loops into patient management systems and conveying targeted information via trusted channels or institutions. The process evaluation of RedAres intervention was considered beneficial by GPs. It confirms the convenience of multimodal interventions to enhance guideline adherence.