How intervention studies measure the effectiveness of medication safety-related clinical decision support systems in primary and long-term care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Medication errors and associated adverse drug events (ADE) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. In recent years, the prevention of medication errors has become a high priority in healthcare systems. In order to improve medication safety, computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) are increasingly being integrated into the medication process. Accordingly, a growing number of studies have investigated the medication safety-related effectiveness of CDSS. However, the outcome measures used are heterogeneous, leading to unclear evidence. The primary aim of this study is to summarize and categorize the outcomes used in interventional studies evaluating the effects of CDSS on medication safety in primary and long-term care. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library for interventional studies evaluating the effects of CDSS targeting medication safety and patient-related outcomes. We extracted methodological characteristics, outcomes and empirical findings from the included studies. Outcomes were assigned to three main categories: process-related, harm-related, and cost-related. Risk of bias was assessed using the Evidence Project risk of bias tool. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Almost all studies (n = 31) used process-related outcomes, followed by harm-related outcomes (n = 11). Only three studies used cost-related outcomes. Most studies used outcomes from only one category and no study used outcomes from all three categories. The definition and operationalization of outcomes varied widely between the included studies, even within outcome categories. Overall, evidence on CDSS effectiveness was mixed. A significant intervention effect was demonstrated by nine of fifteen studies with process-related primary outcomes (60%) but only one out of five studies with harm-related primary outcomes (20%). The included studies faced a number of methodological problems that limit the comparability and generalizability of their results. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on the effectiveness of CDSS is currently inconclusive due in part to inconsistent outcome definitions and methodological problems in the literature. Additional high-quality studies are therefore needed to provide a comprehensive account of CDSS effectiveness. These studies should follow established methodological guidelines and recommendations and use a comprehensive set of harm-, process- and cost-related outcomes with agreed-upon and consistent definitions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42023464746.

A case management intervention in stroke care: Evaluation of a quasi-experimental study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with initial stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) are at high risk for further strokes, death or cardiovascular events. Even the first-ever stroke is associated with a high chance of disability and need for assistance. The risk of long-term health care demands increases with each subsequent event. Although the inpatient sector already provides a high standard of care in Germany, it can be difficult to obtain cross-sectoral aftercare. Thus, the study investigated whether a structured case management program can avoid stroke recurrences. METHODS: The study was conducted with a quasi-experimental study design in three regions in North Rhine-Westphalia. Patients with first-ever stroke or TIA were eligible to participate. The intervention group was prospectively recruited and supported by a case manager during a one-year follow-up. Optimal Full Matching was used to generate a control group based on statutory claims data. The primary outcome was the stroke recurrence. Recurrence and mortality were analysed by using Cox regression; other secondary outcomes were examined with test-based procedures and with logistic regressions. Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed. RESULTS: From June 2018 to March 2020, 1,512 patients were enrolled in the intervention group. Claims data from 19,104 patients have been transmitted for establishing the control group. After the matching process, 1,167 patients of each group were included in the analysis. 70 recurrences (6.0%) occurred in the intervention group and 67 recurrences (5.7%) in the control group. With a hazard ratio of 1.06 (95% CI: [1.42-0.69]; p=0.69), no significant effect was found for the primary outcome. With regard to the secondary outcome mortality, 36 patients in the intervention group and 46 in the control group died (3.1% vs. 3.9%). Again, there was no significant effect (HR: 0.86; 95% CI: [0.58-1.28], p=0.46). DISCUSSION: Based on the present findings, the case management approach for stroke patients evaluated here was unable to demonstrate an improvement in health care. Potential effects of case management might not be adequately depicted in short observation periods. Thus, future studies should consider longer observation periods. CONCLUSION: A panel of experts should discuss whether the core approach of case management to support cost-intensive individual cases is contrary to a broad implementation with a one-size-fits-all intervention for stroke patients. In this case, further research should focus on more specific study populations.

The Relationship of Continuity of Care, Polypharmacy and Medication Appropriateness: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Worldwide, polypharmacy and medication appropriateness-related outcomes (MARO) are growing public health concerns associated with potentially inappropriate prescribing, adverse health effects, and avoidable costs to health systems. Continuity of care (COC) is a cornerstone of high-quality care that has been shown to improve patient-relevant outcomes. However, the relationship between COC and polypharmacy/MARO has not been systematically explored. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the operationalization of COC, polypharmacy, and MARO as well as the relationship between COC and polypharmacy/MARO. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL. Quantitative observational studies investigating the associations between COC and polypharmacy and/or COC and MARO by applying multivariate regression analysis techniques were eligible. Qualitative or experimental studies were not included. Information on the definition and operationalization of COC, polypharmacy, and MARO and reported associations was extracted. COC measures were assigned to the relational, informational, or management dimension of COC and further classified as objective standard, objective non-standard, or subjective. Risk of bias was assessed by using the NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies were included. Overall, substantial differences existed in terms of the COC dimensions and related COC measures. Relational COC was investigated in each study, while informational and management COC were only covered among three studies. The most frequent type of COC measure was objective non-standard (n = 16), followed by objective standard (n = 11) and subjective measures (n = 3). The majority of studies indicated that COC is strongly associated with both polypharmacy and MARO, such as potentially inappropriate medication (PIM), potentially inappropriate drug combination (PIDC), drug-drug interaction (DDI), adverse drug events (ADE), unnecessary drug use, duplicated medication, and overdose. More than half of the included studies (n = 15) had a low risk of bias, while five studies had an intermediate and seven studies a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Differences regarding the methodological quality of included studies as well as the heterogeneity in terms of the operationalization and measurement of COC, polypharmacy, and MARO need to be considered when interpreting the results. Yet, our findings suggest that optimizing COC may be helpful in reducing polypharmacy and MARO. Therefore, COC should be acknowledged as an important risk factor for polypharmacy and MARO, and the importance of COC should be considered when designing future interventions targeting these outcomes.

Market access and value-based pricing of digital health applications in Germany.

In December 2019, the Digital Health Care Act ("Digitale-Versorgung-Gesetz") introduced a general entitlement to the provision and reimbursement of digital health applications (DiGA) for insured persons in the German statutory health insurance. As establishing a new digital service area within the solidarity-based insurance system implies several administrative and regulatory challenges, this paper aims to describe the legal framework for DiGA market access and pricing as well as the status quo of the DiGA market. Furthermore, we provide a basic approach to deriving value-based DiGA prices.To become eligible for reimbursement, the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices evaluates the compliance of a DiGA with general requirements (e.g., safety and data protection) and its positive healthcare effects (i.e., medical benefit or improvements of care structure and processes) in a fast-track process. Manufacturers may provide evidence for the benefits of their DiGA either directly with the application for the fast-track process or generate it during a trial phase that includes temporary reimbursement. After one year of \]reimbursement, the freely-set manufacturer price is replaced by a price negotiated between the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Funds and the manufacturer. By February 2022, 30 DiGA had successfully completed the fast-track process. 73% make use of the trial phase and have not yet proven their benefit. Given this dynamic growth of the DiGA market and the low minimum evidence standards, fair pricing remains the central point of contention. The regulatory framework makes the patient-relevant benefits of a DiGA a pricing criterion to be considered in particular. Yet, it does not indicate how the benefits of a DiGA should be translated into a reasonable price. Our evidence-based approach to value-based DiGA pricing approximates the SHI's willingness to pay by the average cost-effectiveness of one or more established therapy in a field of indication and furthermore considers the positive healthcare effects of a DiGA.The proposed approach can be fitted into DiGA pricing processes under the given regulatory framework and can provide objective guidance for price negotiations. However, it is only one piece of the pricing puzzle, and numerous methodological and procedural issues related to DiGA pricing are still open. Thus, it remains to be seen to what extent DiGA prices will follow the premise of value-based pricing.

An Innovative Telemedical Network to Improve Infectious Disease Management in Critically Ill Patients and Outpatients (TELnet@NRW): Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based infectious disease and intensive care management is more relevant than ever. Medical expertise in the two disciplines is often geographically limited to university institutions. In addition, the interconnection between inpatient and outpatient care is often insufficient (eg, no shared electronic health record and no digital transfer of patient findings). OBJECTIVE: This study aims to establish and evaluate a telemedical inpatient-outpatient network based on expert teleconsultations to increase treatment quality in intensive care medicine and infectious diseases. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial (February 2017 to January 2020) to establish a telemedicine inpatient-outpatient network among university hospitals, hospitals, and outpatient physicians in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. Patients aged ≥18 years in the intensive care unit or consulting with a physician in the outpatient setting were eligible. We provided expert knowledge from intensivists and infectious disease specialists through advanced training courses and expert teleconsultations with 24/7/365 availability on demand respectively once per week to enhance treatment quality. The primary outcome was adherence to the 10 Choosing Wisely recommendations for infectious disease management. Guideline adherence was analyzed using binary logistic regression models. RESULTS: Overall, 159,424 patients (10,585 inpatients and 148,839 outpatients) from 17 hospitals and 103 outpatient physicians were included. There was a significant increase in guideline adherence in the management of Staphylococcus aureus infections (odds ratio [OR] 4.00, 95% CI 1.83-9.20; P<.001) and in sepsis management in critically ill patients (OR 6.82, 95% CI 1.27-56.61; P=.04). There was a statistically nonsignificant decrease in sepsis-related mortality from 29% (19/66) in the control group to 23.8% (50/210) in the intervention group. Furthermore, the extension of treatment with prophylactic antibiotics after surgery was significantly less likely (OR 9.37, 95% CI 1.52-111.47; P=.04). Patients treated by outpatient physicians, who were regularly participating in expert teleconsultations, were also more likely to be treated according to guideline recommendations regarding antibiotic therapy for uncomplicated upper respiratory tract infections (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.16-1.56; P<.001) and asymptomatic bacteriuria (OR 9.31, 95% CI 3.79-25.94; P<.001). For the other recommendations, we found no significant effects, or we had too few observations to generate models. The key limitations of our study include selection effects due to the applied on-site triage of patients as well as the limited possibilities to control for secular effects. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine facilitates a direct round-the-clock interaction over broad distances between intensivists or infectious disease experts and physicians who care for patients in hospitals without ready access to these experts. Expert teleconsultations increase guideline adherence and treatment quality in infectious disease and intensive care management, creating added value for critically ill patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03137589; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03137589.

[Digital Health Applications: A Qualitative Study of Approaches to Improve Access to Statutory Health Insurance]. / Lösungsansätze für den Zugang digitaler Gesundheitsanwendungen zur Gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung: eine qualitative Studie.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of integration of appropriate digital health applications (DiGA) into the first healthcare market in Germany. In order to enable a valid and reliable use of previously examined digital health products, their implementation into services of the statutory health insurance (SHI) is necessary. The aim of this study was the development of strategies to modify and improve access of DiGA to SHI reimbursement. The recently introduced Digitale-Versorgung-Gesetz (DVG) is an initial step in this direction. METHODS: Using a qualitative approach, focus group interviews were conducted with key stakeholders of existing access paths. Previously elaborated problem-solving approaches were discussed. The approaches ranged between adapting existing structures and implementing an original digital pathway. Subsequently, a comparison of the project results and legislative provision of the DVG was carried out. RESULTS: The proposed approaches were discussed heterogeneously and varied depending on the position of the participants. The implementation of an Advisory Council had a greater consensus than the introduction of a digital-specific pathway. Also individual measures like administrative support for generating the necessary evidence was considered as positive and beneficial. However, a deviation from the current evidence standards should be avoided. Furthermore, the legitimacy and time expenditure for the digital-specific pathway was called into doubt. CONCLUSIONS: In principle, a better focus on existing structures on digital health applications can be endorsed. For a short-term use of DiGA potentials, adaptions of existing structures are preferable. The DVG legislation, although conforming to the project results only to some degree, can be considered as a first step. An amendment, in particular from the viewpoint of diagnostic or therapeutic DiGA, appears to be necessary.

[Level of Use and User Groups of Online Video Consultations in Outpatient Medical Care: Analysis of Claims Data]. / Nutzungsgrad und Nutzergruppen der Online-Videosprechstunde in der ambulanten ärztlichen Versorgung ­ Eine Routinedatenanalyse.

OBJECTIVE: Despite perceived potentials, billability as a standard service to the statutory health insurance (SHI) and various promotional measures, online video consultation has not yet established itself as a fixed component of everyday outpatient care. Longer-term quantitative studies on the degree of utilisation have been lacking so far. However, these are essential for a better understanding of diffusion processes and the effects of promotional measures. The present study represents a first step towards a continuous examination. METHODS: The utilisation of video consultations in outpatient care was examined from the beginning of their reimbursability in April 2017 until the end of 2018. In order to get an overview of the user groups, relevant physician and patient characteristics (specialist group, age, region) that can be depicted in the billing data were also investigated. RESULTS: During the 21 months of the observation period, a total of 320 video consultations were conducted, with monthly usage figures in 2018 already twice as high as in 2017. Overall, 105 insurants used at least one video consultation (average age 74.6 years; 59.8 from urban regions). Among the 30 doctors who used video consultation, 36.7% were general practitioners, representing the largest group of physicians. CONCLUSION: The study underlines the low significance of online video consultations in outpatient care in the first 21 months after their introduction. The results are in line with previous findings from short-term analyses and demoscopic studies. They also point to initial usage trends that need to be further investigated with extended observation periods and broader data bases across several more statutory insurance companies.

["Alternative study designs" for the evaluation of digital health applications - a real alternative?] / "Alternative Studiendesigns" zur Bewertung digitaler Gesundheitsanwendungen ­ eine echte Alternative?

INTRODUCTION: After the Digital Healthcare Act (Digitale-Versorgung-Gesetz, DVG) reformed digital health applications' (Digitale Gesundheitsanwendungen, DiGAs) access to German Statutory Health Insurance (SHI) reimbursement, the discussion concerning necessary evidence requirements has intensified. In the past, different "alternative study designs" have been proposed to replace randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the DiGA efficacy and benefit assessments. The present paper examines the suitability of these alternative designs for informing SHI reimbursement decisions. METHODS: The four alternative study designs primarily discussed in the context of DiGA - "Continuous Evaluation of Evolving Behavioral Intervention Technologies" (CEEBIT), "Multiphase Optimization Strategy" (MOST), "Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial" (SMART) and "Micro-Randomized Trial" (MRT) - are characterized and compared on the basis of relevant primary and secondary sources. Subsequently, their suitability for effectiveness and benefit evaluation in the context of SHI reimbursement decisions is discussed. RESULTS: None of the study designs examined aims primarily at conclusively demonstrating efficacy and benefit. Three of the four designs (MOST, SMART, MRT) focus on the development and optimization of interventions. In order to reduce resource requirements, the approaches presented sometimes deviate considerably from the methodological approach in traditional RCTs. This is especially true for their applied statistical error tolerance and their underlying randomization logic. Three of the four concepts (MOST, SMART, MRT) therefore still require RCTs after the development phase in order to demonstrate the effectiveness and benefit of the optimized intervention. DISCUSSION: The methodological differences of the alternative study designs compared to classical RCTs are accompanied by serious potentials for bias and uncertainties with regard to the identified intervention effects. These may be acceptable in the context of intervention development, but do not appear to be appropriate for use in collective SHI reimbursement decisions. CONCLUSION: The alternative study designs presented cannot be regarded as a suitable RCT alternative for efficacy and benefit assessments. A pragmatic study design, which continues to meet high methodological standards, and better utilization of real-world data could, in the future, contribute to a compromise between the justified claims to sufficient certainty of results on the one hand and appropriate procedural effort on the other.

[Efficacy of decision support systems to improve medication safety - results of the evaluation of the "Arzneimittelkonto NRW"]. / Wirksamkeit technischer Unterstützungssysteme zur Verbesserung der Arzneimitteltherapiesicherheit ­ Evaluationsergebnisse des Arzneimittelkontos NRW.

Polypharmacy increases the risk of adverse drug reactions, especially in the elderly. Therefore, the reduction of potentially inadequate medication (PIM), an improvement in drug therapy safety and, in general, a more rational use of drugs is an objective of various interventions. The aim of this prospective single-arm interventional study is to investigate the potential of a decision support system (DSS; "Arzneimittelkonto NRW") to improve medication safety in outpatient care. 15 primary care physicians participating in the study recruited 874 patients. Prescription data and results of medication safety tests were available for 654 patients. Data of at least 12 months were available for 86% of these patients. PIM prevalence declined within 12 months (-11.3%), but not at a statistically significant level. The number of prescriptions after the introduction of the DSS is significantly below the prescription volume before the introduction of the DSS (-14.1%). Constantly high alteration rates of up to 85% were observed, for example, on drug interaction system warnings made by the DSS. Technical decision support systems have the potential to support a safer and cost-saving drug use. For the first time, this pilot study provides evidence for this in the context of standard outpatient care in Germany. However, further investigations are necessary to establish a robust body of evidence. A particular focus should be on the qualitative monitoring of the studies and the involvement of other actors in the care process.