[Acceptance of an oncologic addendum for the application of the German Standardized Medication Plan in oral anticancer drug therapy]. / Akzeptanz eines onkologischen Addendums zur Anwendung des Bundeseinheitlichen Medikationsplans in der oralen Tumortherapie.

BACKGROUND: The Federal Standardized Medication Plan (BMP) offers the possibility of providing patients with specific information on drug therapy. Cancer patients who are treated with oral anticancer drugs have a great need for information as they take the drugs independently in their home environment. Providing specific instructions for oral anticancer drugs may enhance the patient role and improve medication safety. METHODS: In a four-step process (needs assessment, compilation of the text modules, pilot and main phase), an oncologic addendum for the BMP was developed and subjected to an acceptance test. Also, a needs assessment was conducted with oncologists, pharmacists and patients to identify important information to be included in the oncologic addendum. Subsequently, the acceptability of the BMP including the addendum ('Onko-BMP') was tested among health care providers and patients in two study phases (pilot and main phase). Updates made to the Onko-BMP were documented at each follow-up visit. At the end of the observation period, discrepancies between a brown bag review and the latest Onko-BMP were identified to evaluate its completeness. In addition, acceptance of the Onko-BMP was analyzed using qualitative methods. At the end of the pilot phase the patients were interviewed and completed a questionnaire at the end of the main phase. Focus interviews and a focus group were conducted with the health care providers. RESULTS: A total of 347 health care providers and cancer patients participated in the needs assessment, including 167 oncologists, 130 pharmacists, and 50 patients. Suggestions for additional information to be included in the oncologic addendum mainly included instructions for how to take the medication, therapy-limiting side effects as well as potentially relevant interactions with over-the-counter drugs. Ten patients participated in the pilot phase and 60 patients in the main phase of the project. The use of the Onko-BMP was positively evaluated by all participants. The majority of the 178 updates in the main phase were made by the patients themselves. Most frequently, missing items were added (62). After comparison with the brown bag at the end of the observation period, 175 discrepancies for a total of 270 products, including food supplements (mean 6.3 ±â€¯3.9), and 245 drugs (mean 5.7 ±â€¯3.1) taken by the patients were detected, 49 of which were due to missing drugs on the Onko-BMP, mainly on-demand medication (30). 82 documented discrepancies were for prescription drugs. In the qualitative surveys, health care providers indicated that there is a high need for the Onko-BMP. In particular, its use could strengthen the patient's role in therapy. The frequently missing or poor technical requirements for working with the BMP were perceived as limiting its widespread use. Assignment of clear responsibilities and remuneration of all professionals involved were identified as important influential factors for an efficient use of the Onko-BMP. Patients considered the added value of the Onko-BMP primarily to be in their being able to inform their treating physicians and pharmacists about their medication. CONCLUSIONS: The developed Onko-BMP gained a high level of acceptance among patients and health care providers. It can improve education about oral anticancer drugs and thereby strengthen the patient role. However, in order to ensure widespread use of the tool, the necessary conditions should be created on the part of the health care providers. In particular, the IT infrastructure for its use in daily routine needs to be improved in order to exploit its full potential and ensure its successful large-scale implemention.

[Outpatient medical specialist care (ASV): A multiperspective study on status quo, challenges and perspectives]. / Ambulante Spezialfachärztliche Versorgung (ASV): eine multiperspektivische Studie zu Status quo, Herausforderungen und Perspektiven.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, the so-called ambulatory medical specialist care (ASV) was implemented in accordance with para. 116b of Book V of the German Social Code (SGB V), enabling physicians in outpatient practices and hospitals to treat patients with rare diseases or complex courses of disease in a uniform framework. The implementation, however, is slow. The Joint Federal Committee (G-BA) has therefore commissioned an evaluation of the ASV with the aim to examine the reasons for this and to provide recommendations for further development. METHODS: The health services research study "GOAL-ASV" (Innovation Fund, 01VSF19002) included a multi-perspective design with primary data collection as well as secondary data analyses. Data from the ASV service center and the central association of statutory health insurances and the notification forms of the extended state committees were analyzed. Data from the Robert Koch-Institute, the Federal Joint Committee, the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Funds and a literature database analysis were used in order to estimate the proportion of insured persons qualifying for ASV. Care was examined by analyzing pseudonymized routine data from the statutory health insurances using selected indicators. Participating and not participating physicians were asked to complete an online survey. RESULTS: Since the start of ASV, 615,531 insured persons have been treated in this form of care. At the time of analysis, 509 teams were operating, with 26,540 physicians treating 102,898 patients by the end of March 2021 in all indications. This comprises less than 9.8 %. of all approx. 1.05 million eligible patients. Especially in the case of rare diseases, a low willingness of participation can be seen. In addition, there was a relevant proportion of multiple uses of physicians within and outside ASV at 31 percent as well as indications of passive participation of doctors. We found significant regional differences in type and scope of the notification procedure as well as the implementation of teams with 13.4 teams per 1 million inhabitants in Schleswig-Holstein and no team in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Patient benefits (84 %), interdisciplinary (82 %) and cross-sectoral cooperation (75 %) were cited as motivations for participation. The main barriers reported by the respondents were the complex and laborious notification procedure (60 %), the administrative and documentation effort during participation (50 %), insufficient billing figures (49 %), and a small proportion of patients (32 %) with a consecutively unfavorable assessment of the cost to income ratio due to the current reimbursement system. DISCUSSION: Nearly ten years after its introduction, the ASV has not become established nationwide. The reasons for this probably are the complex notification procedure and the reimburesement system for rare diseases. In the case of rare diseases, the risk of underuse is becoming apparent. CONCLUSION: Strategies to further develop the ASV should, in particular, simplify the notification procedure and reduce the obstacles during participation. The remuneration system should take more account of the specific care required.

[Quality assurance in haemato-oncology specialist practices]. / Qualitätssicherung bei hämatoonkologischen Schwerpunktpraxen: Ergebnisse der Strukturdatenerhebung 2019.

BACKGROUND: The regularly published quality reports of the haemato-oncology specialist practices primarily include billing data and results of patient and staff surveys as well as current project-related results. In order to obtain further information on structural quality, an additional survey was conducted among haemato-oncology practices. OBJECTIVES: The goals are the analysis and presentation of structural quality characteristics of haemato-oncology specialist practices. METHODS: We performed an online survey of practices with at least one member in the Professional Association of Office-based Haematologists and Oncologists in Germany in 2019 on practice characteristics, professional policy issues, quality management, and networking. RESULTS: Of 372 practices contacted, 130 participated in the structural data survey (35%). Regarding the topics of quality management and networking, the data show that more than 60% of the practices have a certified quality management system. Almost all practices (94%) are contracted to at least one certified centre and regularly participate in tumour conferences (98%). Furthermore, 77% of the practices participate in clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the 2019 structural data survey provide insights into quality characteristics of haemato-oncology specialist practices and demonstrate a strong cross-sector networking of these practices in Germany.

[Feedback strategies for routine surveys of quality indicators in outpatient oncology care]. / Feedbackstrategien bei routinemäßigen Erhebungen von Qualitätsindikatoren in der ambulanten onkologischen Versorgung.

OBJECTIVES: The study deals with the efficiency and possible improvements of quality promotion with quality indicators (QI). The goal is to investigate the practical use of feedback from QI surveys in the field of oncology office practices. It captures both the acceptance of results and the independent initiation of search- and improvement strategies. The value of best practice examples is of further interest. METHODS: Within one year, data of six QI of 31 physicians from 24 oncology practices were collected twice and the results were sent back in individual reports including a benchmarking. Practices with particularly good results in individual QI sectors were surveyed in semi-structured telephone interviews about their processes. Based on these results, best practice examples were created and provided to all participating practices to stimulate improvement. Further, two paper-based surveys about the acceptance and handling of results as well as the use of best practice examples were conducted. RESULTS: The practices accepted the reported results as an instrument to assess their own care quality (70 %) and indicated that had been able to identify improvement potentials (75 %). Improvement strategies were developed or planned by approximately every second practice in the respective sectors. The practices were interested in the best practice examples and rated them as helpful (70 %). Many of them indicated that they were already taking up some of the suggestions for improving the organization of their own processes or were planning to do so. CONCLUSION: The extraction of information on QI from patient files is a tedious task for the practices. Both the implementation of the necessary internal measures after receiving the results report as well as the adaptation of external process examples to their own processes is challenging. Nevertheless, oncology practices benefit from the feedback of the results of QI surveys and best practice examples. Thus, QI surveys and the reporting of results can actively encourage quality development.