[General practices and community care points work hand in hand in the care of multimorbid patients: What are the advantages? - A qualitative study with general practitioners and medical practice assistants]. / Hausarztpraxen und Pflegestützpunkte Hand in Hand in der Versorgung multimorbider Patient*innen: Welche Vorteile kann das bringen? ­ Eine qualitative Studie mit Hausärzt*innen und Medizinischen Fachangestellten.

BACKGROUND: Caring for an increasing number of multimorbid people is a challenge for general practices in Germany. A possible approach to ensure future care could be the cooperation between general practices and community care points, which have so far been a little-known option among general practitioners. The aim of this study was to investigate the benefits or additional burdens that, from the perspective of general practices, a cooperation between general practices and community care points would bring for both the general practitioners themselves and their patients. METHODS: In the mixed-methods study COMPASS II, general practices were able to refer multimorbid patients with social counselling needs to a community care point. Semi-structured guideline-based telephone interviews were conducted with nine general practitioners and nine medical practice assistants regarding the feasibility of cooperation with the community care points. The interviews were analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: In the qualitative interviews, the general practitioners and medical practice assistants reported that the community care points helped them save time by relieving them of social counselling tasks. The interviewees felt relieved by knowing that the community care points expertly take care of their patients' social concerns. From the perspective of the interviewees, multimorbid patients experienced changes in their care through the counselling in community care points, such as adjusting the level of care they require. Social counsellors provided patients and their relatives with an overview of the support options available. The majority of the interviewees did not feel that cooperating with the community care point put an additional burden on their patients or on themselves. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Cooperation between general practices and community care points has the potential to improve care for multimorbid patients and reduce the workload burden on general practices. Community care points are legally anchored counselling services which general practitioners could increasingly involve in the care of patients with multimorbidity.

[Referrals from general practice to community care points. What are the patients' experiences? An interview study]. / Von der Hausarztpraxis zum Pflegestützpunkt überwiesen. Welche Erfahrungen haben die Patient*innen gemacht? Eine Interview-Studie.

INTRODUCTION: Primary care for multimorbid patients does not only include medical but also social counseling. In Germany, community care points represent an institutionalised support offer for counseling for social and care-related issues at district level. METHODS: Within the framework of an intervention study on the cooperation between general practices and community care points in Berlin, 14 telephone interviews were conducted with multimorbid patients with social counseling needs who received advice by a community care point. The aim was to investigate satisfaction with the cooperation process as a whole and with the counseling provided by the community care points. The transcribed interviews were analysed using the framework analysis. RESULTS: Overall, the patients were satisfied with the counseling they received from the community care points. In many cases, even after counseling, patients were not aware of the range of services offered by the community care points, and there was confusion about community care points and locally known mobile care services. Patients felt that it was particularly important to have a friendly, reliable contact person, to be close to their own place of residence and to have a long-term connection to the service. From the point of view of those affected, the general practitioner remains an important contact person who initiates the counseling, if necessary, and coordinates the interventions to be derived from the counseling result. DISCUSSION: The confusion about community care points and mobile care services due to a lack of knowledge about the range of services offered by community care points are central topics in the interviews. This could be due to the heterogeneous supply of the community care points as well as the lack of networking with GP practices. A standardisation of the offer and increased information and networking activities of the community care points at district level could contribute to an increased level of awareness and improve transparency of their services. CONCLUSION: In the long term, cooperation between community care points and general practitioners could help relieve the burden on general practitioners and improve social care for multimorbid patients at district level.

COMPASS II-Coordination of Medical Professions Aiming at Sustainable Support Protocol for a feasibility study of cooperation between general practitioner practices and community care points.

INTRODUCTION: General practitioners (GP) increasingly face the challenge of meeting the complex care needs of multi-morbid patients. Previous studies show that GP practices would like support from other institutions in advising on social aspects of care for multi-morbid patients. Already existing counselling services, like community care points, are not sufficiently known by both GPs and patients. The aim of COMPASS II is to investigate the feasibility of cooperation between GP practices and community care points. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: During the intervention, GPs send eligible multi-morbid patients with social care needs to a community care point. The community care points report the consultation results back to the GPs. In preparation for the intervention, in a moderated process, GP practices meet with the community care points to agree on information exchange. The primary outcome is the feasibility of the cooperation: Questionnaires will be sent to GPs, medical practice assistances and community care point personnel (focus: practicality, acceptability). Data will be collected on frequency and reasons for GP-initiated consultations at community care points (focus: demand). Qualitative interviews will be conducted with all participating groups (focus: acceptability, satisfaction). The secondary outcome is the assessment of changes in health-related quality of life, social support and satisfaction with care: participating patients complete a questionnaire before and three to six months after their counselling. The results of the study will be incorporated into a manual in which the experiences of the cooperation will be made available to other GP practices and community care points. DISCUSSION: In COMPASS II, GP practices establish cooperation with community care points. The latter are already existing institutions that provide independent and free advice on social matters. By using an existing institution, the established cooperation and experiences from the study can be used beyond the end of the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered with DRKS-ID: DRKS00023798, Coordination of Medical Professions Aiming at Sustainable Support II.

Longitudinal analysis of changes in energy intake and macronutrient composition during pregnancy and 6 weeks post-partum.

PURPOSE: This prospective study was carried out in order to investigate changes in nutritional intake during pregnancy with regard to caloric intake and macronutrient composition in normal-weight pregnant women. METHODS: Using food scales, 32 healthy pregnant women estimated their food intake over a period of 2 days at gestational week 16, 22, 30, 36 and, in addition, 6 weeks after delivery. The recorded food logs were analyzed with respect to caloric intake and macronutrient composition. RESULTS: The women's age was averaged 29.6 ± 4.5 years, and the mean pre-pregnancy BMI was 22.4 ± 2.5 kg/m². Mean weight gain was 16.5 ± 4.5 kg. On average, birth took place during the 40th week of gestation, with the babies having a mean birth weight of 3,515 ± 406 g. Caloric intake during the gestation period and post-partum showed no statistically significant changes and added up 9,237 ± 1,876 kJ/day during the 16th week of gestation, 9,496 ± 2,437 kJ/day during the 22nd, 9,073 ± 1,863 kJ/day during the 30th, 9,525 ± 2,135 kJ/day during the 36th week and 8,445 ± 2,160 kJ/day 6 weeks after delivery. No significant changes were observed in the composition of macronutrients during the pregnancy. The daily composition of macronutrients was as follows: carbohydrates 281 ± 57 g/day (51.7%), fat 86 ± 16 g/day (35.8%) and protein 75 ± 13 g/day (13.9%). However, we observed a decrease in carbohydrate intake of 239 ± 72 g/day (48%) after birth. CONCLUSIONS: Healthy pregnant women showed no significant changes in their caloric intake or nutritional profiles. Performed with an accurate measurement, this prospective study shows that healthy pregnant require neither increased caloric intake nor a change in macronutrient composition.

Optimal timing for postprandial glucose measurement in pregnant women with diabetes and a non-diabetic pregnant population evaluated by the Continuous Glucose Monitoring System (CGMS).

OBJECTIVE: Using the Continuous Glucose Monitoring System (CGMS; Medtronic Minimed) for a group of pregnant women with and without glucose intolerance, we attempted to answer the following questions: (1) when does the physiological peak of postprandial glucose occur?; (2) do non-diabetic pregnant women and pregnant women with diabetes have different postprandial glucose profiles?; and (3) what is the optimal time for postprandial glucose measurement rated according to clinical outcome? METHODS: We included 53 pregnant women in our study. Based on the criteria of the German Diabetes Association (fasting, 5.0 mmol/L; 1-h, 10.0 mmol/L; 2-h, 8.6 mmol/L) we included 13 women with gestational diabetes, four with type 1 diabetes and 36 non-diabetic pregnant (NDP) women. Gestational and type 1 diabetics were classed as one group: pregnancy complicated by diabetes (PCD). Patients with carbohydrate intolerance underwent dietary counseling in accordance with the recommendations of the American Diabetes Association. Patients received a CGMS for use over 72 h. This was calibrated seven times a day with an Accu-Check. The pre- and postprandial glucose levels were documented at 15-min intervals for 3 h from the beginning of each meal. The postprandial data from the three meals were added. The group was divided according to three clinical outcome parameters: mode of delivery, birth weight percentile, and diabetes-associated complications. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences between groups were found for body mass index, fetal birth weight and oral glucose tolerance test. No significant differences were found for age, parity and gestational age, mode of delivery, and diabetes-associated complications. The sensor provided similar numbers of measurements in both groups (278+/-43 vs. 298+/-73, P = 0.507). The postprandial glucose peak was reached after 82+/-18 min in the non-diabetics vs. 74+/-23 min in the PCD group (not significant). Postprandial glucose values were normally slightly higher in PCD (not significant). We added the postprandial glucose values at each time interval for the three meals for each day. For the sum, there was a significant difference between the measurements at 120 min and at 135 min postprandial (P < 0.05). Dividing the group by clinical outcome showed a significant difference between the postprandial time intervals of 75 min and 105 min (P < 0.05). In addition, the time interval was different from 60 min to 135 min for the mode of delivery and birth weight percentile (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The 120-min interval is too long and has a lower correlation to clinical outcome parameters than earlier measurements. Our findings show that the optimal time for testing is between 45 and 120 min postprandial. Based on our practical experience and dietary recommendations, we would prefer a 60-min interval, because patients can calculate this more easily and can have more freedom to eat the recommended number of snacks.

No influence of high- and low-carbohydrate diet on the oral glucose tolerance test in pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to determine the influence of the carbohydrate content of the diet preceding the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) in pregnancy on the test results and to evaluate the necessity of the recommended preparatory high-carbohydrate diet. STUDY DESIGN: Thirty-four women from our outpatient clinic were enrolled in this prospective study. After giving informed consent, each women underwent a 90-min lesson (supervised by a dietary assistant) covering the carbohydrate, protein and fat content of different foods. Women were then randomized and in a crossover design started a diet with either a low or a high carbohydrate content. We were aiming at a carbohydrate intake of 40% in the low-carbohydrate week (LCH) and 50% in the high-carbohydrate week (HCH). Compliance was monitored by a detailed food diary which the women kept and which included the weight of the foods they consumed. RESULTS: The actual dietary intakes as calculated from the food diaries showed that the mean caloric intake was 1801 +/- 314 kcal in the LCH and 2118 +/- 312 kcal in the HCH week (<0.001). During the LCH diet, CH intake was 39 +/- 6.1% and 49 +/- 6.6% in the HCH week (P < 0.001). The carbohydrate intake per kilogram bodyweight was 30 +/- 5.3 kcal vs. 35 +/- 5.2 kcal (P < 0.001). The number of patients diagnosed with gestational diabetes was two in the LCH and three in the HCH week (not significant). The sum of the OGTT values (fasting, 1 h and 2 h) after the LCH was 18.9 +/- 2.1 mmol/l vs. 18.8 +/- 2.1 mmol/l after the HCH (P = 0.51). No differences could be found in both groups regarding the fasting, 1-h, or 2-h glucose values. Including patients with a CH difference of at least 5%, 10%, and 15% carbohydrate between the weeks, we still did not observe any differences in the OGTT sum. We also looked at a possible influence of the CH content of the diet on the day before the test and of the last meal before the OGTT results and observed there was none. CONCLUSION: This is the first study which has observed the influence of the previous day's meal on the test results. We conclude from our results that the carbohydrate percentage of the preparatory diet did not influence the results of an OGTT, even when we increased the difference in carbohydrate intake stepwise up to 15%. This might indicate that a preparatory diet before the OGTT is not necessary for women with normal nutritional behavior.