Associations of Mental Health Issues with Health Literacy and Vaccination Readiness against COVID-19 in Long-Term Care Facilities-A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

Vaccinations against COVID-19 are of the utmost importance in long-term care facilities. During the pandemic, mental health issues increased significantly. This cross-sectional analysis aimed to assess the associations of depression and anxiety with health literacy in people in need of care and the association of depression and burnout with vaccination readiness against COVID-19 in health care workers (HCWs). Within our cross-sectional study, people in need of care were assessed for symptoms of depression (PHQ-9), anxiety (GAD-7), and health literacy (HLS-EU-Q16). Among HCWs, we assessed symptoms of depression (PHQ-9) and burnout (MBI-HSS), as well as psychological antecedents of vaccination (5C) to measure vaccination readiness against COVID-19. A multivariate regression analysis was performed. Symptoms of a major depression were significantly associated with reduced health literacy (p = 0.010) in people in need of care. Among HCWs, symptoms of depression and burnout reduced vaccination readiness against COVID-19 significantly. In particular, collective responsibility was reduced in HCWs suffering from burnout symptoms (p = 0.001). People in need of care and their HCWs could benefit from intensified target group-specific vaccination counseling. Additionally, more attention should be paid to the protection of mental health in long-term care facilities.

What do people know and think about medical overuse? an online questionnaire study in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Medical overuse is defined as health care services that exceed the individual needs of patients and when the potential harms of medical interventions exceed their benefits. It has impacts on patients as well as on health care resources. To address medical overuse, it is important to understand the knowledge and experiences of overuse on the side of patients. RESEARCH QUESTIONS: What is the citizens' understanding of overuse? How do they assess its relevance, causes, consequences and potential solutions? METHODS: A quantitative online survey was conducted. The participants were asked to state what they understand by medical overuse. Statements on causes, consequences and possible solutions were evaluated. Recruitment was carried out via a panel of a market research institute (Schlesinger Group). RESULTS: The survey was completed by 406 participants. In terms of age and gender, the sample corresponded to the distribution in the German population. The majority had never heard of medical overuse (58%). About 60% assumed that medical overuse means "too much medicine including overtreatment and overtesting". Medical overuse was mainly suspected for services not covered by the public health insurance system (56%), surgical interventions (45%) and medication prescriptions (37%). Reasons for medical overuse were seen in uncoordinated care and financial incentives, but also in the expectations of patients. The main problem with medical overuse was seen in rising health care costs, while harmful physical and mental consequences for patients were mentioned less often. In order to reduce medical overuse, little importance was attributed to a primary care based system or higher financial contribution of patients. Instead, stricter cost control on the side of physicians and better coordination between care providers were suggested as solutions. Differences in socio-demographic characteristics hardly showed any differences in response behavior. CONCLUSION: More than half of the respondents had never heard of medical overuse. Overuse was mainly associated with financial causes and consequences. It was not seen that overuse can be harmful for patients directly. The limited awareness of the problem of overuse probably is a barrier to tackling it effectively. Communicating the topic to the public might therefore be an effective start to mitigate medical overuse. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Many citizens seem not to be familiar with the concept of medical overuse, especially not with the fact that it may directly cause harm to patients. Informing citizens about the harms of medical overuse might be helpful in mitigating it.

Expectations of general practitioners on a practice based research network in Germany- a qualitative study within the Bavarian Research Practice Network (BayFoNet).

BACKGROUND: Despite general practitioners' (GPs') key role in Germany`s primary health care, clinical research in general practice is scarce. Clinical research is mainly conducted at inpatient facilities, although their results are rarely transferable. German GPs have no extra time or funding for research, as well as limited research training. To support clinical research in German primary health care, practice-based research networks (PBRNs) are developed. As they will be based on an active involvement of GPs, we need more information on GPs` participation-readiness. The aim of this study was to explore facilitators and barriers to participation in the Bavarian Research Practice Network (BayFoNet) from the GPs`perspective before clinical trials will be performed. METHODS: We have performed semi-structured qualitative interviews with a purposive sample of 20 Bavarian GPs in 2022 under the application of the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR). Transcriptions were analysed according to Kuckartz` qualitative content analysis. The five domains of the CFIR framework served as initial deductive codes. RESULTS: N = 14 interviewees already agreed to participate in BayFoNet, whereas n = 6 interviewees opted not to participate in BayFoNet at the time of data collection. Main facilitators to conduct clinical research within BayFoNet were the motivation to contribute to evidence strength and quality in general practice, professional development and training of practice staff, as well as networking. Barriers for an active participation were bad experiences with previous clinical studies and lack of resources. CONCLUSIONS: PBRNS in Germany have to be promoted and the entire practice team has to be involved at an early stage of development. Professional training of general practice staff and a living network might enhance engagement. Participatory approaches could help to develop acceptable and feasible study designs. Furthermore, PBRNs should support patient recruitment and data collection in general practices and disseminate the results of their research projects regularly to maintain GPs` engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS00028805, NCT05667207.

"The measures taken by the government overburdened the daily practice" - insights of the PRICOV-19 study on German general practitioners in times of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The international study PRICOV-19 aims to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the organisation of primary health care. The German part focuses on German general practitioners during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper addresses the following research questions: (1) How were changes in tasks on primary care and patient treatment perceived by GPs?, (2) What was the role of GPs during the pandemic, and how was their wellbeing?, (3) How did GPs perceive health policy measures?, and, (4) What influenced the attitudes of GPs on health policy measures? METHODS: This study pursues a multi-country cross-sectional design. Data collection took place throughout Germany from 01.02. to 28.02.2021 with a quantitative online questionnaire consisting of 53 items. The questionnaire was analysed through descriptive and inferential analyses using correlation and multiple regression models. RESULTS: The response rate was 20.4% (n = 349). The respondents were mainly GPs (59.6%) in single practices (62.5%) with a mean work experience of 15 to 20 years. GPs experienced a change in their work and practice organisation (80.3%). They felt a high responsibility (70.6%) and found their work has become more meaningful to them (76%). They also saw a lack of political support (75.2%) and that the measures taken by the government overburdened the daily practice (66.4%). Not many GPs were at risk of being distressed (53.4%) but rated the health policies rather negatively (60%). The multiple regression showed, the more GPs were exposed to risk of distress, the worse they assessed the government's measures. CONCLUSION: GPs perceived their work as relevant and felt confident they could fulfil their tasks, but noticed that health policy initially hardly supported the outpatient sector. Health policies should increase their competence in relation to primary care, ensure its needs and consider an active inclusion of GPs in preparedness plans.

Physicians' assessment of the Bavarian drug-expenditure control system: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: In 2014 a new system for drug expenditures, the Wirkstoffvereinbarung (WSV, English: Active substance agreement) was implemented in Bavaria. In pre-defined indication groups, economic prescription of medications shall be enabled based on the selection, quantity, and proportion of an individual drug. Ambulatory care physicians receive quarterly trend reports on their prescribing behavior. This study examines physicians' perceptions of the WSV. METHODS: Qualitative interviews (n = 20) and seven focus groups (n = 36) were conducted with ambulatory care physicians (e.g. general practitioners, cardiologists, pulmonologists). The methodology followed Qualitative Content Analysis. RESULTS: Physicians generally accepted the necessity of prescribing economically. The majority of them rated the WSV positively and better than the previous system. As an improvement, they especially named timely feedback in form of easily understandable trend reports, encouraging self-reflection as well as allowing early control options. Problems perceived were drug discount contracts that were strongly criticized as leading to patients mixing up medications. Some perceived constraints of therapeutic freedom. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the WSV is mostly viewed positively by physicians. The restrictions of therapeutic freedom partially perceived might be met by improved information on the reasons why some drugs are rated as less economical than others. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Main ID: DRKS00019820 (German Register of Clinical Studies and World Health Organization).

Patient-reported reactogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccinations vs. comparator vaccinations: a comparative observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In the course of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, multiple vaccines were developed. Little was known about reactogenicity and safety in comparison to established vaccines, e.g. influenza, pneumococcus, or herpes zoster. Therefore, the present study aimed to compare self-reported side effects in persons vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 with the incidence of side effects in persons receiving one of the established vaccines. METHODS: A longitudinal observational study was conducted over a total of 124 days using web-based surveys. Persons receiving either a vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 or one of the established vaccines (comparator group) were included. In the first questionnaire (short-term survey), 2 weeks after vaccination, mainly local and systemic complaints were evaluated. The long-term survey (42 days after vaccination) and follow-up survey (124 weeks after vaccination) focused on medical consultations for any reason. Multivariate analyses were conducted to determine the influence of the vaccine type (SARS-CoV-2 vs. comparator) and demographic factors. RESULTS: In total, data from 16,636 participants were included. Self-reported reactogenicity was lowest in the comparator group (53.2%) and highest in the ChAdOx1 group (85.3%). Local reactions were reported most frequently after mRNA-1273 (73.9%) and systemic reactions mainly after vector-based vaccines (79.8%). Almost all SARS-CoV-2 vaccines showed increased odds of reporting local or systemic reactions. Approximately equal proportions of participants reported medical consultations. None in the comparator group suspected a link to vaccination, while this was true for just over one in 10 in the mRNA-1273 group. The multivariate analysis showed that people with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were not more likely to report medical consultations; patients who had received a regimen with at least one ChAdOx1 were even less likely to report medical consultations. Younger age, female gender and higher comorbidity were mostly associated with higher odds of medical consultations. CONCLUSION: The rate of adverse reactions after established vaccinations was roughly comparable to previous studies. Two weeks after vaccination, participants in the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination group reported more local and systemic local reactions than participants in the comparator group. In the further course, however, there were no higher odds of medical consultations in either of the two groups. Thus, altogether, we assume comparable safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS-ID DRKS00025881 and DRKS-ID DRKS00025373.

Development of a subset of the international classification of functioning, disability and health as a basis for a questionnaire for community-dwelling older adults aged 75 and above in primary care: a consensus study.

OBJECTIVES: Functioning of older adults needs to be adequately described before it can become the focus of care. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) provides a basis for describing functioning. As the ICF is too extensive for daily practice in primary care, there is a need for a reduced number of categories. The aim is to develop an ICF-subset for community-dwelling older adults aged 75 and above in primary care. DESIGN: The scientific basis for decision-making in our consensus study was laid by four preparatory studies, identifying potentially relevant ICF categories from four perspectives (research, patients', experts' and clinical perspective). The results of the preparatory phase were discussed by an international expert panel in a consensus study following the Nominal Group Technique (NGT). SETTING: An international 1-day online consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS: International experts (n=7) participated in the consensus conference, meeting the following criteria: extensive expertise in the field of the ICF and/or caring for older adults, and being fluent in English. RESULTS: Each preparatory study yielded a different number of categories with some overlaps but also differences. The expert panel decided to: (1) restrict the subset to second-level categories and reduce the number of categories from the preparatory phase, (2) limit the subset to the component activities and participation and (3) weight the patients' perspective as the most relevant one. CONCLUSIONS: By using consensus techniques and the NGT, the process led to 51 second-level ICF categories to describe the functioning of community-dwelling older adults. The decisions made in the consensus conference emphasised the importance of considering the individual life situation from a more holistic perspective and addressing functioning as a focus of care. Next, the 51 categories will contribute to the development of an ICF-based questionnaire.

Process evaluation in practice based research networks: a study protocol for a mixed-methods implementation study.

INTRODUCTION: General practitioners often criticise clinical trials for their poor applicability in primary care, which may at least partially explain why their engagement in primary care research remains limited. In order to enhance primary care research, the German government has funded six regional practice based research networks (PBRNs). Within the Bavarian PBRN (BayFoNet), two cluster-randomised pilot trials will be conducted. This paper presents the protocol of the process evaluation accompanying both trials, which aims to explore relevance, feasibility, acceptability and credibility of clinical research in primary care from the perspectives of BayFoNet researchers, general practitioners, and patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The BayFoNet will be established by recruiting general practices (GPs) as prospective research collaborators in two cluster randomised pilot trials. Research teams will provide training in good clinical practice, and support practices in patient recruitment, data collection and documentation. Our process evaluation explores barriers and facilitators in the set up of the BayFoNet PBRN and both cluster randomised pilot trials, under the application of the consolidated framework for implementation research and the theoretical domains framework. In a mixed-methods concept, we will use qualitative and quantitative approaches to evaluate both pilot cluster-randomised trials as well as the BayFoNet itself: focus groups with researchers, semi-structured interviews with general practitioners and questionnaires for patients participating in the pilot cluster-randomised trials at three different time points. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethical approval for this study was granted by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Department, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich (AZ 21-1135). Results will be published in international peer-reviewed journals and summaries will be provided to the funders of the study as well as other PBRNs, GP teams and patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: DRKS00028805, NCT05667207.

[Clinical quality governance-a practical approach in general practice with the example of influenza vaccination]. / Klinische Qualitätssteuerung ­ ein praktischer Versuch in der Hausarztpraxis am Beispiel der Influenzaimpfung.

We understand clinical quality governance (CQG) as quality management in the clinical domain. In 2020, presumably due to the coronavirus pandemic, more patients requested to be vaccinated against influenza as compared to previous years so that it became apparent that there would be a shortage for high-risk patients. To meet the problem, we started a CQG process. This article is explicitly not a research article but an exemplary description of a CQG process intended as a stimulus and for discussion. We initiated the following process: (1) evaluation of the present state, (2) patients who already had requested a vaccination were prioritized and vaccinated first, and (3) contacting via telephone and vaccination of high-risk patients not on the list. We chose patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) older than 60 years as an indicator for the group of highest priority. In the beginning only 3 (8%) of our 38 patients with COPD were vaccinated against influenza. After prioritization and vaccination of the high-risk collective in the list of those who had requested to be vaccinated, 25 (66%) of our 38 patients with COPD were vaccinated. After a phone call of high-risk patients not on the list, 28 (74%) patients were vaccinated. This represents an increase of vaccination coverage from 8% to 74% which is close to the rate recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). In times of a pandemic, family physicians occasionally have to deal with a scarcity of resources and have to develop strategies for fair resource allocation. Not only in this context is CQG worth the effort. The generation of list queries could be improved by the providers of electronic patient records.

Reactogenicity and safety of COVID-19 primary immunisation and booster vaccination regimens: a comparative observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, recommendations regarding the vaccination have been very dynamic. Although the safety and efficacy of different vaccines have been analysed, data were scarce for vaccine regimens combining different vaccines. We therefore aimed to evaluate and compare the perceived reactogenicity and need for medical consultation after the most frequently applied homologous and heterologous COVID-19 vaccination regimens. METHODS: In an observational cohort study, reactogenicity and safety were assessed within a maximum follow-up time of 124 days using web-based surveys. Reactogenicity was assessed for different vaccination regimens 2 weeks after a vaccination (short-term survey). The following surveys, long-term and follow-up surveys, focused on the utilisation of medical services, including those that were not suspected to be vaccine-related. RESULTS: Data of 17,269 participants were analysed. The least local reactions were seen after a ChAdOx1 - ChAdOx1 regimen (32.6%, 95% CI [28.2, 37.2]) and the most after the first dose with mRNA-1273 (73.9%, 95% CI [70.5, 77.2]). Systemic reactions were least frequent in participants with a BNT162b2 booster after a homologous primary immunisation with ChAdOx1 (42.9%, 95% CI [32.1, 54.1]) and most frequent after a ChAdOx1 - mRNA-1273 (85.5%, 95% CI [82.9, 87.8]) and mRNA-1273/mRNA-1273 regimen (85.1%, 95% CI [83.2, 87.0]). In the short-term survey, the most common consequences were medication intake and sick leave (after local reactions 0% to 9.9%; after systemic reactions 4.5% to 37.9%). In the long-term and follow-up surveys, between 8.2 and 30.9% of participants reported consulting a doctor and between 0% and 5.4% seeking hospital care. The regression analyses 124 days after the first and after the third dose showed that the odds for reporting medical consultation were comparable between the vaccination regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis revealed differences in reactogenicity between the COVID-19 vaccines and vaccination regimens in Germany. The lowest reactogenicity as reported by participants was seen with BNT162b2, especially in homologous vaccination regimens. However, in all vaccination regimens reactogenicity rarely led to medical consultations. Small differences in seeking any medical consultation after 6 weeks diminished during the follow-up period. In the end, none of the vaccination regimens was associated with a higher risk for medical consultation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS DRKS00025881 ( https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00025373 ). Registered on 14 October 2021. DRKS DRKS00025373 ( https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00025881 ). Registered on 21 May 2021. Registered retrospectively.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people in need of care or support: protocol for a SARS-CoV-2 registry.

INTRODUCTION: People in need of care or support are severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We lack valid data of long-term assessments. We present a register study to detect the physical and psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people in need of care or support in Bavaria, Germany. To describe the persons' life conditions comprehensively, we assess the perspectives and needs of the respective care teams too. Results will serve as evidence-based source to manage the pandemic and long-term prevention strategies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The 'Bavarian ambulatory COVID-19 Monitor' is a multicentre registry including a purposive sample of up to 1000 patient-participants across three study sites in Bavaria. The study group consists of 600 people in need of care with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. Control group 1 comprises 200 people in need of care with a negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR test, while control group 2 comprises 200 people with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test but are not in need of care. We assess the clinical course of infection, psychosocial aspects and care needs using validated measures. Follow-up is every 6 months for up to 3 years. Additionally, we assess up to 400 people linked to these patient-participants (caregivers, general practitioners (GPs)) for their health and needs. Main analyses are stratified by level of care I-V (I=minor/V=most severe impairment of independence), inpatient/outpatient care setting, sex and age. We use descriptive and inferential statistics to analyse cross-sectional data and changes over time. In qualitative interviews with 60 stakeholders (people in need of care, caregivers, GPs, politicians), we explore interface problems of different functional logics, of everyday and professional perspectives. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Institutional Review Board of the University Hospital LMU Munich (#20-860) and the study sites (Universities of Wurzburg and Erlangen) approved the protocol. We disseminate the results by peer-reviewed publications, international conferences, governmental reports, etc.

[General Practitioners' Experiences with COVID-19: a Survey After the First Wave of the Pandemic in March/April 2020]. / Erfahrungen von HausärztInnen mit COVID-19 und der Pandemie ­ ein Survey nach der ersten Pandemiewelle im März/April 2020.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (Mar-Apr 2020) posed significant challenges for primary care. The goal of this study was to analyse the burden of the crisis situation as experienced by the general practitioners (GPs) at its beginning and over the course of the pandemic and to identify factors predictive of the sense of being overburdened. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, a total of 6300 randomly selected GPs in four federal states of Germany were contacted per post in order to survey changes in health care they provided and their psychological burden in the context of the pandemic between August and October 2020. RESULTS: The response rate was 23%; 46% of the participants were female. At the beginning of the pandemic, 40% of the participants experienced a high or a very high level of being overburdened; later on, it was only 10%. With increasing numbers of COVID patients, the sense of being overburdened increased, as also their perceived capability to care for COVID patients. Predictors of a sense of being overburdened were, among others, a high level of psychological stress, excessive organising efforts, poor capability to care for COVID patients, and scarce supply of protective equipment. CONCLUSION: Despite a sense of being overburdened initially, GPs felt increasingly capable of caring for COVID patients. To help GPs in future crisis situations like this pandemic, organization of care should be simplified to the extent possible so that they can focus on patient care.

The conceptualization of acute bronchitis in general practice - a fuzzy problem with consequences? A qualitative study in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Acute bronchitis is one of the most frequent diagnoses in primary care. Scientifically, it is conceptualized as a viral infection. Still, general practitioners (GPs) often prescribe antibiotics for acute bronchitis. The explanation for this discrepancy may lie in a different conceptualization of acute bronchitis. Therefore, we wanted to know, how GPs conceptualize acute bronchitis, and how they differentiate it from common cold and pneumonia. Furthermore, we tried to find out the GPs' reasons for prescribing antibiotics in those cases. METHODS: To answer our study questions, we conducted a qualitative study with GPs in Bavaria, Germany, by using semi-structured guided interviews. The analysis of the data was conducted using the documentary method according to Ralf Bohnsack. The transcripts were subdivided into categories. Analyzing each part by reflective interpretation, first manually, secondly with the help of RQDA, we extracted the most representative citations and main messages from the interviews. RESULTS: The term acute bronchitis seems to be applied when there is neither certainty of the diagnosis common cold, nor of pneumonia. It seems it bridges the gap of uncertainty between supposedly harmless clinical pictures (common cold/viral), to the more serious ones (pneumonia/bacterial). The conceptual transitions between common cold and acute bronchitis on the one side, and acute bronchitis and pneumonia on the other are fluid. The diagnosis acute bronchitis cannot solve the problem of uncertainty but seems to be a label to overcome it by offering a way to include different factors such as severity of symptoms, presumed signs of bacterial secondary infection, comorbidities, and presumed expectations of patients. It seems to solve the pathophysiologic riddle of bacterial or viral and of decision making in prescribing antibiotics. CONCLUSION: Acute bronchitis as an "intermediate category" proved difficult to define for the GPs. Applying this diagnosis leaves GPs in abeyance of prescribing an antibiotic or not. As a consequence of this uncertainty in pathophysiologic reasoning (viral or bacterial) other clinical and social factors tip the balance towards antibiotic prescribing. Teaching physicians to better think in probabilities of outcomes instead of pathophysiologic reasoning and to deal with uncertainty might help reducing antibiotic overprescribing.

Consequences of early thyroid ultrasound on subsequent tests, morbidity and costs: an explorative analysis of routine health data from German ambulatory care.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate whether the use of thyroid ultrasound (US) early in the work-up of suspected thyroid disorders triggers cascade effects of medical procedures and to analyse effects on morbidity, healthcare usage and costs. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of claims data from ambulatory care (2012-2017). SETTING: Primary care in Bavaria, Germany, 13 million inhabitants. PARTICIPANTS: Patients having received a thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) test were allocated to (1) observation group: TSH test followed by an early US within 28 days or (2) control group: TSH test, but no early US. Propensity score matching was used adjusting for socio-demographic characteristics, morbidity and symptom diagnosis (N=41 065 per group after matching). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Using cluster analysis, groups were identified regarding frequency of follow-up TSH tests and/or US and compared. RESULTS: Four subgroups were identified: cluster 1: 22.8% of patients, mean (M)=1.6 TSH tests; cluster 2: 16.6% of patients, M=4.7 TSH tests; cluster 3: 54.4% of patients, M=3.3 TSH tests, 1.8 US; cluster 4: 6.2% of patients, M=10.9 TSH tests, 3.9 US. Overall, reasons that explain the tests could rarely be found. An early US was mostly found in clusters 3 and 4 (83.2% and 76.1%, respectively, were part of the observation group). In cluster 4 there were more women, thyroid-specific morbidity and costs were higher and the early US was more likely to be performed by specialists in nuclear medicine or radiologists. CONCLUSION: Presumably unnecessary tests in the field of suspected thyroid diseases seem to be frequent, contributing to cascades effects. Neither German nor international guidelines provide clear recommendations for or against US screening. Therefore, guidelines on when to apply US and when not are urgently needed.

"What else to say?"-Primary health care in times of COVID-19 from the perspective of German general practitioners: An exploratory analysis of the open text field in the PRICOV-19 study.

BACKGROUND: The international collaboration study PRICOV-19 -Primary Health Care in times of COVID-19 aims to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the organisation of primary health care. The German part focuses on the subjective perceptions of general practitioners on primary health care and the impact of political measures during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Within this survey, the "open text field" of the questionnaire was utilised remarkably frequently and extensively by the respondents. It became clear that the content that was named needed to be analysed in an exploratory manner. Accordingly, this paper addresses the following question: What preoccupies general practitioners in Germany during COVID-19 that we have not yet asked them enough? METHODS: The data collection took place throughout Germany from 01.02.2021 to 28.02.2021with a quantitative online questionnaire consisting of 53 items arranged across six topics as well as an "open text field" for further comments. The questionnaire's open text field was analysed following the premises of the qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The topics discussed by the respondents were: insufficient support from health policies, not being prioritised and involved in the vaccination strategy, feeling insufficient prepared, that infrastructural changes and financial concerns threatened the practice, and perceiving the own role as important, as well as that health policies affected the wellbeing of the respondents. One of the main points was the way general practitioners were not sufficiently acknowledged for their contribution to ensuring high-quality care during the pandemic. DISCUSSION: German general practitioners perceived their work and role as highly relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic. In controversy with their perception, they described political conditions in which they were the ones who contributed significantly to the fight against the pandemic but were not given enough recognition.

Detecting Medication Risks among People in Need of Care: Performance of Six Instruments.

INTRODUCTION: Numerous tools exist to detect potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) and potential prescribing omissions (PPO) in older people, but it remains unclear which tools may be most relevant in which setting. OBJECTIVES: This cross sectional study compares six validated tools in terms of PIM and PPO detection. METHODS: We examined the PIM/PPO prevalence for all tools combined and the sensitivity of each tool. The pairwise agreement between tools was determined using Cohen's Kappa. RESULTS: We included 226 patients in need of care (median (IQR age 84 (80-89)). The overall PIM prevalence was 91.6 (95% CI, 87.2-94.9)% and the overall PPO prevalence was 63.7 (57.1-69.9%)%. The detected PIM prevalence ranged from 76.5%, for FORTA-C/D, to 6.6% for anticholinergic drugs (German-ACB). The PPO prevalences for START (63.7%) and FORTA-A (62.8%) were similar. The pairwise agreement between tools was poor to moderate. The sensitivity of PIM detection was highest for FORTA-C/D (55.1%), and increased to 79.2% when distinct items from STOPP were added. CONCLUSION: Using a single screening tool may not have sufficient sensitivity to detect PIMs and PPOs. Further research is required to optimize the composition of PIM and PPO tools in different settings.

Vitamin-K-antagonist phenprocoumon versus direct oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation: a real-world analysis of German claims data.

OBJECTIVES: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were introduced based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing them to vitamin-K-antagonist (VKA) warfarin. In Germany, almost exclusively phenprocoumon is used as VKA. RCTs with phenprocoumon being absent we analysed the benefits and harms of DOACs and phenprocoumon for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in a real-world setting. DESIGN: In a retrospective observational cohort study, claims data covering inpatient and outpatient care from 2015 to 2019 were analysed by Cox regression and propensity score matching (PSM). SETTING: Data from a group of small-sized to medium-sized health insurance companies in Germany. PARTICIPANTS: We analysed datasets of 71 961 patients with AF and first prescription of phenprocoumon (n=20 179) or DOAC in standard dose (n=51 782). Patients with reduced dose of DOACs were excluded (n=21 724). OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes were thromboembolic events, major bleeding and death during a 12-month follow-up period. RESULTS: The regression analysis widely showed similarity between phenprocoumon and standard dose DOACs regarding effectiveness and safety. There were only three statistically significant differences: a lower bleeding risk with composite DOACs and apixaban (HR (95% CI) = 0.67 (0.59 to 0.76) and 0.54 (0.46 to 0.63), respectively) and a higher risk of death with rivaroxaban (1.21 (1.10 to 2.34)). The analysis after PSM was consistent with the first two results regarding composite DOACs and apixaban (number needed to treat, NNT 101 and 78) and showed a lower bleeding risk with rivaroxaban (NNT 156). Absolute differences were small. CONCLUSIONS: The small superiority or non-inferiority of DOACs over warfarin seen in the RCTs might not translate into relevant advantages of DOACs over phenprocoumon. To confirm the hypothesis, an RCT with phenprocoumon is needed. Next to the safety and effectiveness assessments other factors might also play a substantial role in the decision on the right OAC for stroke prevention.