Factors promoting willingness to practice medicine in rural regions and awareness of rural regions in the university's catchment area - cross-sectional survey among medical students in central Germany.

Aim: Many universities offer rural medical internships for medical students. The present survey was designed to show how rural medical work is perceived by students, whether these perceptions are associated with origin and previous experience, and how well medical students know rural regions in the vicinity of their university. In addition, students were asked how to support and inspire medical students to later work in a rural region. Methods: This cross-sectional study was based on an anonymous online survey of medical students at the Universities of Halle-Wittenberg and Leipzig. The evaluations included descriptive statistics, statistical group comparisons, and qualitative content analysis of free text answers. Results: A total of 882 students took part in the survey. Students who had grown up in a rural region or had lived there for a longer time (71.7% of the respondents) rated the work-life balance better (p<0.01) and the patient variety in the countryside slightly higher (p<0.05) than their fellow students from the big city. Students who had worked in a rural practice or hospital before (62.2%) rated patient diversity (p<0.001) and work variety (p<0.001), as well as workload (p<0.01), slightly higher in rural areas than students with no prior experience. On average, the specified rural model regions were still unknown to more than 60% of the students. The suggestions for attracting medical students to later work as rural physicians included financial incentives and, above all, better information about life as a rural physician and the rural regions. Conclusion: Thus, the medical faculties of the universities as well as the counties threatened by medical undersupply should further expand the transfer of knowledge and experience regarding rural physician life for the students.

[Acute respiratory tract infections and antibiotic prescriptions: What are patients' expectations?] / Akute Atemwegsinfekte und Antibiotikaverordnungen: Welche Erwartungen haben Patient*innen?

INTRODUCTION: The use of antibiotics in human medicine is partly responsible for the global increase in antibiotic resistance. Significant reductions in antibiotic prescribing were realised through educational campaigns, communication training and prescribing feedback. Based on data from the cluster-randomised CHANGE-3 trial, the present analysis focuses on the question of patient expectations for an antibiotic in acute respiratory infections. METHODS: 106 of 114 General Practitioner (GP) practices in Baden-Württemberg and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania took part in the study. 4736 patients who visited the practices with acute respiratory infections from October 2018 to May 2019 filled out a questionnaire after the doctor's consultation. The analysis was descriptive. RESULTS: 16.7 % of patients with acute respiratory infections reported receiving antibiotics from their GP. 13.3 % of patients had hoped for an antibiotic and 5.5 % stated that they had asked their GP for an antibiotic prescription. The lowest prescription rate for antibiotics was reported by patients who had received a diagnosis of influenza from their GP. With specific diagnoses differentiated from uncomplicated respiratory tract infection, an increase in both the number of antibiotics hoped for and the number of antibiotics prescribed was observed. DISCUSSION: Patients still receive antibiotics more often than they actually hope for. On the part of GPs, prescriptions may still be written because of perceived pressure from patients, but this is not reflected in patient expectations. In addition to dealing openly with patients' expectations, strengthening patients' health literacy, mindful doctor-patient communication and offered opportunities for re-presentation in the case of specific diagnoses could further reduce the perceived pressure on GPs.

[Acute respiratory tract infections and antibiotic prescriptions: What are patients' expectations?] / Akute Atemwegsinfekte und Antibiotika-Verordnungen: Welche Erwartungen haben Patient*innen?

INTRODUCTION: The use of antibiotics in human medicine is partly responsible for the global increase in antibiotic resistance. Significant reductions in antibiotic prescribing were realised through educational campaigns, communication training and prescribing feedback. Based on data from the cluster-randomised CHANGE-3 trial, the present analysis focuses on the question of patient expectations for an antibiotic in acute respiratory infections. METHODS: 106 of 114 General Practitioner (GP) practices in Baden-Württemberg and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania took part in the study. 4736 patients who visited the practices with acute respiratory infections from October 2018 to May 2019 filled out a questionnaire after the doctor's consultation. The analysis was descriptive. RESULTS: 16.7 % of patients with acute respiratory infections reported receiving antibiotics from their GP. 13.3 % of patients had hoped for an antibiotic and 5.5 % stated that they had asked their GP for an antibiotic prescription. The lowest prescription rate for antibiotics was reported by patients who had received a diagnosis of influenza from their GP. With specific diagnoses differentiated from uncomplicated respiratory tract infection, an increase in both the number of antibiotics hoped for and the number of antibiotics prescribed was observed. DISCUSSION: Patients still receive antibiotics more often than they actually hope for. On the part of GPs, prescriptions may still be written because of perceived pressure from patients, but this is not reflected in patient expectations. In addition to dealing openly with patients' expectations, strengthening patients' health literacy, mindful doctor-patient communication and offered opportunities for re-presentation in the case of specific diagnoses could further reduce the perceived pressure on GPs.

Task sharing in an interprofessional medication management program - a survey of general practitioners and community pharmacists.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacist-led medication review and medication management programs (MMP) are well-known strategies to improve medication safety and effectiveness. If performed interprofessionally, outcomes might even improve. However, little is known about task sharing in interprofessional MMP, in which general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists (CPs) collaboratively perform medication reviews and continuously follow-up on patients with designated medical and pharmaceutical tasks, respectively. In 2016, ARMIN (Arzneimittelinitiative Sachsen-Thüringen) an interprofessional MMP was launched in two German federal states, Saxony and Thuringia. The aim of this study was to understand how GPs and CPs share tasks in MMP when reviewing the patients' medication. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional postal survey among GPs and CPs who participated in the MMP. Participants were asked who completed which MMP tasks, e.g., checking drug-drug interactions, dosing, and side effects. In total, 15 MMP tasks were surveyed using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "I complete this task alone" to "GP/CP completes this task alone". The study was conducted between 11/2020 and 04/2021. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: In total, 114/165 (69.1%) GPs and 166/243 (68.3%) CPs returned a questionnaire. The majority of GPs and CPs reported (i) checking clinical parameters and medication overuse and underuse to be completed by GPs, (ii) checking storage conditions of drugs and initial compilation of the patient's medication including brown bag review being mostly performed by CPs, and (iii) checking side-effects, non-adherence, and continuous updating of the medication list were carried out jointly. The responses differed most for problems with self-medication and adding and removing over-the-counter medicines from the medication list. In addition, the responses revealed that some MMP tasks were not sufficiently performed by either GPs or CPs. CONCLUSIONS: Both GPs' and CPs' expertise are needed to perform MMP as comprehensively as possible. Future studies should explore how GPs and CPs can complement each other in MMP most efficiently.

[Measuring, assessing, acting: A practice test of quality indicators for coronary heart disease]. / Messen, Bewerten, Handeln: Qualitätsindikatoren zur Koronaren Herzkrankheit im Praxistest.

BACKGROUND: There are only limited possibilities for doctors in outpatient services to establish quality management that is based on data-driven feedback regarding the quality of health care. However, transparency about one's own activities is a prerequisite for refining this quality. The aim of this project was to make the quality of care for patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) more transparent, use this as a basis to initiate improvement processes, and explore the framework conditions and factors promoting or inhibiting the intended improvement of health care quality. METHOD: 48 general practitioners (GPs) in 32 GP practices from a Bavarian doctors' network (Qualität und Effizienz, QuE) participated in the project. On the basis of claims data from the AOK-Bayern (a statutory health insurance in Bavaria), data from disease management programs (DMP) and medically documented data, 11 quality indicators for patients with CHD were calculated. The indicator scores were individually presented in feedback reports for each doctor's practice. These were the basis for two quality circles. The indicators were measured again after 12 months, and changes against the baseline measurement were registered. GPs from Bavaria formed the control group. Focus groups with the quality circle moderators and two participant surveys were used to identify promoting and inhibiting factors. RESULTS: The baseline values showed a good level of care. Potential for improvement became apparent for pharmacotherapy with beta blockers and statins. After conducting the quality circles four of the eleven indicators showed an increase as intended ("beta blockers for CHD and cardiac insufficiency", "beta blockers after myocardial infarction", "statins", "successful blood pressure control"). For three of these indicators the increase rates were higher than those in the Bavarian control group. One indicator ("statins") was striking because of the wide variation of practice values suggesting differences in care within the network. The majority of participating doctors regarded the database as valid. Quality circles were highly appreciated as an opportunity for professional exchange among colleagues. The data-based feedback reports helped to make deficits in health care transparent and to identify actions that need to be taken. Barriers to implementing quality improvement measures in clinical practice became apparent. DISCUSSION: Reflecting quality indicators in quality circles can effectively trigger quality improvement processes. Barriers would appear to exist, in particular, to the implementation of measures into daily practice routine. Additional organizational support offered by higher-level quality management structures, IT solutions for patient-related data processing as well as a system of financial compensation, which rewards professional concern for quality, may help to overcome the existing barriers.

[Assessment of the severity of postoperative complications from the patient and doctor perspective]. / Einschätzung des Schweregrads postoperativer Komplikationen aus der Sicht von Patienten und Ärzten.

AIM OF THE STUDY: This study compares doctors' and patients' assessments of the severity of postoperative complications reported by patients. Within the context of quality assurance and patient safety, the study aims to contribute to developing instruments to include patients' views for measuring postoperative complications. METHODS: In a questionnaire development study 474 patients who had undergone different kinds of surgery were given a questionnaire and asked whether postoperative complications occurred, and if so, to describe these complications in free text and assesses their severity as "slight, temporary" or "extensive". In an additional study, the patients' written descriptions of their complications were presented independently to two doctors (general practitioner [GP], orthopaedic surgeon) who were asked to assess the severity from their point of view. The physicians were not aware of the patients' or the other physician's assessments. RESULTS: 23.5 % of the patients participating in the survey reported postoperative complications in the questionnaire. Feedback from 80 of these patients included sufficient information for data analysis concerning the study's aim, including the description of their complication in free text. 47 (58.7 %) of these patients assessed their postoperative complications as being "slight, temporary", 33 (41.3 %) as being "extensive". The doctors, on the other hand, assessed the severity of the complications described by the patients much less often as "extensive" (GP: 20.0 %, orthopaedic surgeon: 11.3 %). In only 4 (12.0 %) of the 33 cases where the patient chose "extensive" both doctors also chose the assessment item "extensive". In 10 cases (30.3 %), one doctor's "extensive" assessment matched the patient's assessment, and in 19 cases (57.6 %) the patients but none of the doctors assessed the complications as being "extensive". There was a higher correlation between the GP's and the patients' assessments than between the orthopaedic surgeon's and the patients' ratings. Examples of patients' descriptions of their postoperative complications in free text as well as the corresponding assessments of patients and doctors are presented. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' views and assessments of postoperative complications are different from doctors' views. Adequate instruments for measuring the occurrence and severity of postoperative complications should be developed bringing the patients' perspectives into the doctors' assessments. Also, it might be useful to include questions addressing information received pre- and postoperatively about the expected postoperative course as well as communication with patients in the case of complications.

Sustainable reduction of antibiotic-induced antimicrobial resistance (ARena) in German ambulatory care: study protocol of a cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite many initiatives to enhance the rational use of antibiotics, there remains substantial room for improvement. The overall aim of this study is to optimise the appropriate use of antibiotics in German ambulatory care in patients with acute non-complicated infections (respiratory tract infections, such as bronchitis, sinusitis, tonsillitis and otitis media), community-acquired pneumonia and non-complicated cystitis, in order to counter the advancing antimicrobial resistance development. METHODS: A three-armed cluster randomised trial will be conducted in 14 practice networks in two German federal states (Bavaria and North Rhine-Westphalia) and an added cohort that reflects standard care. The trial is accompanied by a process evaluation. Each arm will receive a different set of implementation strategies. Arm A receives a standard set, comprising of e-learning on communication with patients and quality circles with data-based feedback for physicians, information campaigns for the public, patient information material and performance-based additional reimbursement. Arm B receives this standard set plus e-learning on communication with patients and quality circles with data-based feedback tailored for non-physician health professionals of the practice team and information material for tablet computers (culture sensitive). Arm C receives the standard set as well as a computerised decision support system and quality circles in local multidisciplinary groups. The study aims to recruit 193 practices which will provide data on 23,934 patients each year (47,867 patients in total). The outcome evaluation is based on claims data and refers to established indicators of the European Surveillance of Antimicrobial Consumption Network (ESAC-Net). Primary and secondary outcomes relate to prescribing of antibiotics, which will be analysed in multivariate regression models. The process evaluation is based on interviews with surveys among physicians, non-physician health professionals of the practice team and stakeholders. A patient survey is conducted in one of the study arms. Interview data will be qualitatively analysed using thematic framework analysis. Survey data of physicians, non-physician health professionals of the practice team and patients will use descriptive and exploratory statistics for analysis. DISCUSSION: The ARena trial will examine the effectiveness of large scale implementation strategies and explore their delivery in routine practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN58150046 . Registered 24 August 2017.

[Structured Outpatient Care in a New Orthopaedic Healthcare Program: Patients' Experiences as Criterion for Quality]. / Strukturierte ambulante Patientenversorgung im Facharztvertrag Orthopädie: die Erfahrungen der Patienten als Qualitätskriterium.

Background In 2015 a survey was conducted in Baden-Württemberg (Germany) among patients treated by orthopaedic specialists participating in a medical specialists' contract between doctors and statutory health insurance funds, in accordance with § 73c of the German Social Code, Book V (SGB V). This contract aims to improve orthopaedic care by structured cooperation between orthopaedic specialists and general practitioners, who are the central coordinators of care, and refer patients to a specialist if necessary. The program is intended to achieve patient-centred care by taking into account the physical, psychological and social aspects of the patients' orthopaedic complaints, as well as informing and motivating patients for self-management and health promoting activities. The survey was intended to receive feedback on the quality of care from the patients enrolled in this medical specialists' program, particularly concerning the specific aims of the program. A feedback report with individual results and a comparison with the overall results of all participating medical practices was sent out to those practices that provided at least 20 analysable questionnaires. Material and Methods The anonymous survey was conducted using a questionnaire specifically developed for the project. Participating practices handed out questionnaires to up to 100 patients who were enrolled in the program and consulted their orthopaedic or surgical specialist within 3 months of the start of the survey. Completed questionnaires were collected and sent to the research institute for data analysis in a sealed box. Results A total of 10,010 patients from 267 practices took part in the survey. Data analysis (including an anonymous comparison of the results of participating practices) was conducted on the basis of patients' responses from 183 practices that had obtained at least 20 completed questionnaires (8,988 patients, response rate 49.1%). Survey results are presented on doctor-patient communication, scheduling appointments, waiting times, cooperation with general practitioner, referral and treatment. On the whole, patients were satisfied with the care provided by their orthopaedic or surgical specialist. The comparison between the practices revealed significant differences in the patients' sociodemographic features and their feedback on the medical care received. Patients' evaluation of information and the counselling received from their orthopaedic/surgical specialist showed the strongest correlation with overall satisfaction. Referral by their general practitioner had a positive influence on patients' intentions to consult their orthopaedic/surgical specialist again. From the patients' point of view, doctors' information and counselling on self-help activities (e.g. eating habits, physical activity) had the largest potential for improvement. Conclusions The survey's results confirm the objectives of this new orthopaedic health care program, especially motivational counselling on adequate physical activity and self-management. They provide a basis for the further development of the quality of care, in accordance with both the contractual aims and the patients' needs.

Involving patients in detecting quality gaps in a fragmented healthcare system: development of a questionnaire for Patients' Experiences Across Health Care Sectors (PEACS).

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a generic questionnaire to evaluate experiences and reported outcomes in patients who receive treatment across a range of healthcare sectors. DESIGN: Mixed-methods design including focus groups, pretests and field test. SETTING: The patient questionnaire was developed in the context of a nationwide program in Germany aimed at quality improvements across the healthcare sectors. PARTICIPANTS: For the field test, 589 questionnaires were distributed to patients via 47 general practices. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Descriptive item analyzes non-responder analysis and factor analysis (PCA). Retest coefficients (r) calculated by correlation of sum scores of PCA factors. Quality gaps were assessed by the proportion of responders choosing a response category defined as indicating shortcomings in quality of care. RESULTS: The conceptual phase showed good content validity. Four hundred and seventy-four patients who received a range of treatment across a range of sectors were included (response rate: 80.5%). Data analysis confirmed the construct, oriented to the patient care journey with a focus on transitions between healthcare sectors. Quality gaps were assessed for the topics 'Indication', including shared-decision-making (6 items, 24.5-62.9%) and 'Discharge and Transition' (10 items; 20.7-48.2%). Retest coefficients ranged from r = 0.671 until r = 0.855 and indicated good reliability. Low ratios of item-non-response (0.8-9.3%) confirmed a high acceptance by patients. CONCLUSIONS: The number of patients with complex healthcare needs is increasing. Initiatives to expand quality assurance across organizational borders and healthcare sectors are therefore urgently needed. A validated questionnaire (called PEACS 1.0) is available to measure patients' experiences across healthcare sectors with a focus on quality improvement.

Evaluation of patient perspective on quality of oral health care in Germany--an exploratory study.

BACKGROUND: Patients' evaluation of care presents an essential dimension of the quality of care. The aim of this exploratory study was to determine which factors of EUROPEP-Dental were associated with overall patients' evaluation of oral health care. METHODS: Data were collected from 8,160 patients from 106 dental practices (response rate 77%) who completed the 30-item EUROPEP-Dental questionnaire. The possible answers ranged from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). The EUROPEP-Dental questionnaire covers four domains: 'dentist-patient relationship' (11 items), 'accessibility and waiting time' (10 items), 'quality of care' (six items), 'costs of care' (three items). Each domain was aggregated by mean scores of the associated items. Regression analyses were performed in addition to descriptive analyses. RESULTS: Over 66% of the patients were overall positive with their dental care. Linear regression analyses were performed with patient satisfaction as the dependent outcome variable. The item 'medical-technical quality of care' showed the highest score (R2 = 0.378) of explained variance, while the EUROPEP-Dental domain 'quality of care' showed the highest score (R2 = 0.467) for explained variance regarding overall patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: The results are important for understanding patients' priorities with regard to oral health care and for identifying possible areas for improvement of quality. The evaluation of patient perspective on quality of oral health care is likely to continue to be an important aspect of oral health-care evaluation.

[Evaluation of special GP-centered health care contracts in Germany by the participating GPs. present situation and future perspectives]. / Hausarztzentrierte Versorgung aus Sicht der teilnehmenden Arzte : Aktuelle Situation und Perspektiven.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In 2004, German statutory health care funds were given the possibility to offer their insured a special general practitioner-( GP-)centered health care contract (HZV), since 2007 they are obliged to do so. The aim of these contracts is to strengthen the role of the GP as a coordinator in the health care system. Until now, the evidence regarding the GPs' view on these contracts is poor. A written survey was conducted in Hesse in order to learn how the participating GPs evaluate the regional HZV. METHODS: In Apri 2008, a questionnaire was developed, tested and mailed to 2,815 GPs who were participating in the GP-centered health care contract at that time. All analyses where conducted with SPSS (version 15.0). RESULTS: A total of 686 questionnaires were returned (response rate 24.4%). Altogether, the GPs' feedback ranged from great approval to clear disapproval of the contract. However, 70.0% of the survey's participants evaluated the HZV in general to be positive, 60.1% felt it strengthens their role as a GP. Quality circles on good prescribing and GP-specific education, obligatory parts of the HZV, were evaluated to be especially positive (70.3% and 69.4%, respectively). Positive effects were also seen concerning coordination of care (53.3%) and cooperation with patients (36.3%). Improvements concerning cooperation with specialists and hospitals were reported less often (24.9% and 13.0%, respectively). Workload because of additional administration for the HZV was criticized. CONCLUSION: In future, special GP-centered health care contracts should focus on improvement of cooperation between GPs and other caregivers. Workload for additional administration should be reduced.

Patient satisfaction with availability of general practice: an international comparison.

OBJECTIVE: To identify associations between the characteristics of general practitioners and practices, and patients' evaluations of the availability of general practice. DESIGN: Written surveys completed by patients. SETTING: General practice care in nine European countries: Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, UK, Belgium (Flanders and Wallonia), Switzerland, Slovenia and Spain. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: 15996 adult patients consecutively visiting the general practitioner (response rates per country varied between 47 and 89%). MAIN MEASURES: The Europep instrument to assess patients' evaluations of five aspects of the availability of general practice care: (1) getting an appointment, (2) getting through on the phone, (3) being able to speak to the practitioner on the telephone, (4) waiting time in the waiting room, and (5) providing quick services for urgent health problems. Each general practitioner recorded age, sex, number of years in the practice, number of practitioners and other care providers in the practice, and urbanization level of the practice. RESULTS: Patients' more positive evaluations were associated with fewer general practitioners in the practice, except for quick services for urgent health problems (range of conditional overall odds ratios, 1.69-2.02). In addition, a number of significant unconditional overall odds ratios were found, particularly those related to the number of general practitioners' working hours and the number of care providers in the practice. None of the associations was found consistently in all countries. CONCLUSION: Patients favour small practices and full-time general practitioners, which contradicts developments in general practice in many countries. Policy makers should consider how the tensions between patients' views and organizational developments can be solved.