Coping with COVID-19: the role of hospital care structures and capacity expansion in five countries.

This contribution examines the responses of five health systems in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: Denmark, Germany, Israel, Spain and Sweden. The aim is to understand to what extent this crisis response of these countries was resilient. The study focuses on hospital care structures, considering both existing capacity before the pandemic and the management and expansion of capacity during the crisis. Evaluation criteria include flexibility in the use of existing resources and response planning, as well as the ability to create surge capacity. Data were collected from country experts using a structured questionnaire. Main findings are that not only the total number but also the availability of hospital beds is critical to resilience, as is the ability to mobilise (highly) qualified personnel. Indispensable for rapid capacity adjustment is the availability of data. Countries with more centralised hospital care structures, more sophisticated concepts for providing specialised services and stronger integration of the inpatient and outpatient sectors have clear structural advantages. A solid digital infrastructure is also conducive. Finally, a centralised governance structure is crucial for flexibility and adaptability. In decentralised systems, robust mechanisms to coordinate across levels are important to strengthen health care system resilience in pandemic situations and beyond.

Effects of cost sharing on seeking outpatient care: a propensity-matched study in Germany and Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have assessed the effect of cost sharing on health service utilization (HSU), mostly in the USA. Results are heterogeneous, showing different effects. Whereas previous studies compared insurants within one health care system but different modes of insurance, we aimed at comparing two different health care systems in Europe: Germany and Switzerland. Furthermore, we assessed the impact of cost sharing depending on socio-demographic factors as well as health status. METHODS: Two representative samples of 5197 Swiss insurants with and 5197 German insurants without cost sharing were used to assess the independent association between cost sharing and the use of outpatient care. To minimize confounding, we performed cross-sectional analyses between propensity score matched Swiss and German insurants. We investigated subgroups according to health and socio-economic status to assess a potential social gradient in HSU. RESULTS: We found a significant association between health insurance scheme and the use of outpatient services. German insurants without cost sharing (visit rate: 4.8 per year) consulted a general practitioner or specialist more frequently than Swiss insurants with cost sharing (visit rate: 3.0 per year; P < 0.01). Subgroup analyses showed that vulnerable populations were differently affected by cost sharing. In the group of respondents with poor health and low socio-economic status, the cost-sharing effect was strongest. CONCLUSION: Cost-sharing models reduce HSU. The challenge is to create cost-sharing models which do not preclude vulnerable populations from seeking essential health care.

German ambulatory care physicians' perspectives on continuing medical education - a national survey.

INTRODUCTION: This survey aimed to investigate German ambulatory physicians' opinions about mandatory continuing medical education (CME) and CME resources shortly before the introduction of mandatory CME in 2004. METHODS: A structured national telephone survey of general practitioners and specialists was conducted. Main outcome measures were opinions about mandatory CME, preferred CME media, and financial aspects of CME. Data analysis applied Pearson's correlation coefficient for explorative analysis of correlations, analysis of variance for group comparison, and chi(2)-test for investigation of distribution of 2 or more categorical variables. RESULTS: Of the 511 participants, 73% felt that CME supported them in keeping up to date with new medical knowledge, yet only half believed in its ability to minimize medical errors or increase quality of patient care. Traditional ways of learning were preferred. Significant differences in CME behavior were found between primary-care physicians and specialists, the latter using more communicative media. Also, a small group of very skeptical physicians who do not agree with the need for CME in general was identified. Average expenditure for CME was estimated between 500 and 1000 Euros per year. A majority of physicians called for other parties, eg, health insurances or government, to share the financial responsibility for CME. DISCUSSION: Mandatory CME was accepted as a necessity already before the new legislation took effect, with prevailing skepticism at the same time. Future research is needed on how to motivate physicians and especially certain subgroups of physicians to use CME methods shown to be effective in changing clinical behavior.

Are German patients burdened by the practice charge for physician visits ('Praxisgebuehr')? A cross sectional analysis of socio-economic and health related factors.

BACKGROUND: In 2004, a practice charge for physician visits ('Praxisgebuehr') was implemented in the German health care system, mainly in order to reduce expenditures of sickness funds by reducing outpatient physician visits. In the statutory sickness funds, all adults now have to pay euro 10 at their first physician visit in each 3 month period, except for vaccinations and preventive services. This study looks at the effect of this new patient fee on delaying or avoiding physician visits, with a special emphasis on different income groups. METHODS: Six representative surveys (conducted between 2004 and 2006) of the Bertelsmann Healthcare Monitor were analysed, comprising 7,769 women and men aged 18 to 79 years. The analyses are based on stratified analyses and logistic regression models, including a focus on the subgroup having a chronic disease. RESULTS: Two results can be highlighted. First, avoiding or delaying a physician visit due to this fee is seen most often among younger and healthier adults. Second, those in the lowest income group are much more affected in this way than the better of. The multivariate analysis in the subgroup of respondents having a chronic disease shows, for example, that this reaction is reported 2.45 times more often in the lowest income group than in the highest income group (95% CI: 1.90-3.15). CONCLUSION: The analyses indicate that the effects of the practice charge differ by socio-economic group. It would be important to assess these effects in more detail, especially the effects on health care quality and health outcomes. It can be assumed, however, that avoiding or delaying physician visits jeopardizes both, and that health inequalities are increasing due to the practice charge.

German ambulatory care physicians' perspectives on clinical guidelines - a national survey.

BACKGROUND: There has been little systematic research about the extent to which German physicians accept or reject the concept and practice of a) clinical practice guidelines (CPG) and b) evidence based medicine (EBM)The aim of this study was to investigate German office-based physicians' perspective on CPGs and EBM and their application in medical practice. METHODS: Structured national telephone survey of ambulatory care physicians, four thematic blocks with 21 questions (5 point Likert scale). 511 office-based general practitioners and specialists. Main outcome measures were the application of Clinical Practice Guidelines in daily practice, preference for sources of guidelines and degree of knowledge and acceptance of EBM. In the data analysis Pearson's correlation coefficient was used for explorative analysis of correlations. The comparison of groups was performed by Student's t-test. Chi2 test was used to investigate distribution of two or more categorical variables. RESULTS: Of the total study population 55.3% of physicians reported already using guidelines in the treatment of patients. Physicians in group practices (GrP) as well as general practitioners (GP) agreed significantly more with the usefulness of guidelines as a basis for patient care than doctors in single practices (SP) or specialists (S) (Student's t-test mean GP 2.57, S 2.84, p < 0.01; mean GrP 2.55, SP 2.80, p < 0.05). 33.1% of the participants demonstrated a strong rejection to the application of guidelines in patient care. Acceptance of guidelines from a governmental institution was substantially lower than from physician networks or medical societies (36.2% vs. 53.4% vs. 62.0%). 73.8% of doctors interpret EBM as a combination of scientific research and individual medical knowledge; 80% regard EBM as the best basis for patient care. CONCLUSION: Despite a majority of physicians accepting and applying CPGs a large group remains that is critical and opposed to the utilization of CPGs in daily practice and to the concept of EBM in general. Doctors in single practice and specialists appear to be more critical than physicians in group practices and GPs. Future research is needed to evaluate the willingness to acquire necessary knowledge and skills for the promotion and routine application of CPGs.

[Shared decision making. The perspective of practicing physicians]. / "Shared Decision Making"Gemeinsame Entscheidungsfindung aus der ärztlichen Perspektive.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: More and more, patients want to participate in medical decision making. They expect a patient-centered communication as well as adequate information. However, little is known about the physicians' perspective and skills regarding shared decision making (SDM). This paper presents data about the physicians' perspective and allows focused comparison with the patients' views. METHODS: Standardized survey of 502 physicians from ambulatory care practices and of 1,512 German-speaking people, aged 18-79 years. Patient data were collected from a population-based random sample of an access panel. The following topics were included in this survey: medical decision making in daily practice, communication skills and behavior of physicians from the perspectives of physicians and patients. RESULTS: A majority of physicians approve the concept of SDM. Especially younger physicians favor the concept of SDM. Overall, physicians underestimate their patients' preference to participate in medical decision making. Physicians also tend to overestimate their information and communication skills. CONCLUSION: Not only in the general public, but also among physicians, a model of SDM is widely accepted. The communication skills necessary for this process appear to exist. However, they need to be promoted and extended. Learning to communicate adequately should receive a greater focus in medical education and postgraduate training.