Navigating the Future of Organisational Health Services Research in Germany and beyond: a Position Paper. / Die Zukunft der organisationsbezogenen Versorgungsforschung in Deutschland und darüber hinaus ­ ein Positionspapier.

BACKGROUND: Recent analyses have shown that in health services research in Germany, healthcare organisations are often considered primarily as a study setting, without fully taking their complex organisational nature into account, neither theoretically nor methodologically. Therefore, an initiative was launched to analyse the state of Organisational Health Services Research (OHSR) in Germany and to develop a strategic framework and road map to guide future efforts in the field. This paper summarizes positions that have been jointly developed by consulting experts from the interdisciplinary and international scientific community. METHODS: In July 2023, a scoping workshop over the course of three days was held with 32 (inter)national experts from different research fields centred around OHSR topics using interactive workshop methods. Participants discussed their perspectives on OHSR, analysed current challenges in OHSR in Germany and developed key positions for the field's development. RESULTS: The seven agreed-upon key positions addressed conceptual and strategic aspects. There was consensus that the field required the development of a research agenda that can guide future efforts. On a conceptual level, the need to address challenges in terms of interdisciplinarity, terminology, organisation(s) as research subjects, international comparative research and utilisation of organisational theory was recognized. On a strategic level, requirements with regard to teaching, promotion of interdisciplinary and international collaboration, suitable funding opportunities and participatory research were identified. CONCLUSIONS: This position paper seeks to serve as a framework to support further development of OHSR in Germany and as a guide for researchers and funding organisations on how to move OHSR forward. Some of the challenges discussed for German OHSR are equally present in other countries. Thus, this position paper can be used to initiate fruitful discussions in other countries.

Interventions Into Reliability-Seeking Health Care Organizations: A Systematic Review of Their Goals and Measuring Methods.

OBJECTIVES: Within the last 2 decades, numerous interventions making use of high-reliability theory have been implemented to increase reliability in healthcare organizations. This systematic literature review first explores the concrete goals on which such interventions focus. Second, the review captures how the achievement of these goals, or alternatively a change, generally an increase in organizational reliability, is measured across different contexts. METHODS: Searches were conducted in PubMed, Academic Search Ultimate, Business SourcePremier, CINAHL, Communication Source, EconLit, ERIC, Medline, Political Science Complete, PsycArticles, APA PsycInfo, PSYNDEX, SocINDEX (via the resource hosterEbscoHost), and Web of Science (through November 22, 2021). Peer-reviewed, English language studies were included, reporting on the implementation of a concrete intervention to increase reliability in a medical context and referring to high-reliability theory. RESULTS: The search first yielded 8896 references, from which 75 studies were included in the final sample. Important healthcare goals stated by the seminal report "Crossing the Quality Chasm" guided the analysis of the included studies. Most of the studies originated from the United States and report on interventions to increase reliability of either organizational units or whole organizations when aiming for safety (n = 65). Other goals reported on include effectiveness, and much less frequently timeliness, patient centeredness, and efficiency. Fifty-eight studies use quantitative measurement exclusively to account for the achievement of these goals; 7 studies use qualitative measurement exclusively, and 10 studies use a mixed-method approach. The operationalization of goals, including the operationalization of organizational reliability, and measurement methods do not follow a unified approach, despite claiming to be informed by a coherent theory. Instead, such operationalizations strongly depend on the overall objective of the study and the respective context. CONCLUSIONS: Measuring the outcomes of high-reliability interventions into healthcare organizations is challenging for different reasons, including the difficult operationalization of partly overlapping goals, the complex, processual nature of achieving reliability, and the limited ability of organizations striving for more reliability if they are already performing on a high level. This review critically assesses the adoption of the goals stated in the seminal report "Crossing the Quality Chasm" and provides insights for organizations and funding providers that strive to evaluate more reliable service provision.

The German health care Innovation Fund - An incentive for innovations to promote the integration of health care.

PURPOSE: Many health systems face challenges such as rising costs and lacking quality, both of which can be addressed by improving the integration of different health care sectors and professions. The purpose of this viewpoint is to present the German health care Innovation Fund (IF) initiated by the Federal Government to support the development and diffusion of integrated health care. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: This article describes the design and rationale of the IF in detail and provides first insights into its limitations, acceptance and implementation by relevant stakeholders. FINDINGS: In its first period, the IF offered € 1.2 billion as start-up funding for model implementation and evaluation over a period of four years (2016-2019). This period was recently extended to a second round until 2024, offering € 200 million a year as from 2020. The IF is triggering the support of relevant insurers for the development of new integrated care models. In addition, strict evaluation requirements have led to a large number of health service research projects which assess structural and process improvements and thus enable evidence-based policy decisions. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This article is the first of its kind to present the German IF to the international readership. The IF is a political initiative through which to foster innovations and promote integrated health care.

[Communicating test results in a comprehensible manner: A randomized controlled trial of word usage in doctor-patient communication]. / Befundergebnisse verständlich vermitteln ­ Eine randomisiert-kontrollierte Studie zur Wortwahl in der Ärzt*innen-Patient*innen-Kommunikation.

INTRODUCTION: Doctor-patient communication is one of the hallmarks of good medical treatment. Mutual understanding is of foremost importance, in particular when communicating non-numerical test results. METHODS: Using a two-step approach, this study analyses the influence of wording on the correct understanding of medical test results by people without a medical background. In a first step, a qualitative analysis of physicians' letters helped to identify adjectives that are frequently used to communicate test results. In a second step, a parallel randomised study was conducted to test the comprehensibility of particularly relevant adjectives, combining the written communication of test results with a subsequent survey. 1,131 participants, representing the population of Germany with regard to age, gender, and educational level, were recruited via an online platform. The participants read a scenario involving the communication of the results of a breath test, whereby non-numerical test results were described as being either "positive" vs. "negative" (n=566) or "abnormal" vs. "normal" (n=565). Participant assignment to one of these groups took place in a randomised way. The outcomes measured included the subjective and objective understanding of test results as well as the participants' subjective comprehension of the physician communicating with them. RESULTS: People without a medical background can understand medical test results more readily when neutral, descriptive adjectives are used rather than adjectives considered as being judgmental in everyday language. 54 % of the participants who read test results using the adjectives "positive" vs. "negative" and 65 % of the participants who read test results using the adjectives "abnormal" vs. "normal", respectively, understood the results correctly. This relative difference of 20.4 % in the number of participants with a correct understanding is statistically significant (Chi square=13.061; p=0.001). There was also a considerable difference in the subjective understanding (means of 5.04 of "positive" vs. "negative" and 5.47 for "abnormal" vs. "normal" on a 7-point Likert scale; absolute mean difference 0.42 [95 % CI: 0.20; 0.64]) as well as in the subjective comprehension of the communicating physician (means of 4.49 for "positive" vs. "negative" and 4.95 for "abnormal" vs. "normal" on a 7-point Likert scale; absolute mean difference 0.45 [95% CI: 0.23; 0.67]). A higher level of comprehension for the words "abnormal" vs. "normal" was consistent across the overall sample. It is mainly people with no school-leaving certificate and a lower educational level who benefit from the changed wording. CONCLUSIONS: In the process of communicating non-numerical medical test results, people without a medical background understand neutral, descriptive adjectives better than adjectives that are considered judgmental in everyday usage. A corresponding change of written and oral communication can easily be implemented by medical experts in their everyday practice and particularly supports a population group that already suffers disadvantages in the medical system.

Barriers to the Integration of Care in Inter-Organisational Settings: A Literature Review.

INTRODUCTION: In recent years, inter-organisational collaboration between healthcare organisations has become of increasingly vital importance in order to improve the integration of health service delivery. However, different barriers reported in academic literature seem to hinder the formation and development of such collaboration. THEORY AND METHODS: This systematic literature review of forty studies summarises and categorises the barriers to integrated care in inter-organisational settings as reported in previous studies. It analyses how these barriers operate. RESULTS: Within these studies, twenty types of barriers have been identified and then categorised in six groups (barriers related to administration and regulation, barriers related to funding, barriers related to the inter-organisational domain, barriers related to the organisational domain, barriers related to service delivery, and barriers related to clinical practices). Not all of these barriers emerge passively, some are set up intentionally. They are not only context-specific, but are also often related and influence each other. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The compilation of these results allows for a better understanding of the characteristics and reasons for the occurrence of barriers that impede collaboration aiming for the integration of care, not only for researchers but also for practitioners. It can help to explain and counteract the slow progress and limited efficiency and effectiveness of some of the inter-organisational collaboration in healthcare settings.

[After the crisis is before the crisis: Coping-strategies for public health emergency situations on different levels--experiences of the German E. coli outbreak 2011]. / Nach der Krise ist vor der Krise. Allgemeine Strategien für die erfolgreiche Bewältigung medizinischer Krisensituationen basierend auf den Erfahrungen des EHEC-Ausbruchs 2011.

The German E. coli crisis in 2011 posed multifaceted challenges to the actors of the German health care system. This paper analyzes the outbreak from a multidisciplinary perspective. It offers best practices and general recommendations for future public health emergencies for hospitals as well as at the federal and local level, addressing medical practitioners as well as health care managers.