Development of indicators to assess quality and patient pathways in interdisciplinary care for patients with 14 ambulatory-care-sensitive conditions in Germany.

BACKGROUND: In settings like the ambulatory care sector in Germany, where data on the outcomes of interdisciplinary health services provided by multiple office-based physicians are not always readily available, our study aims to develop a set of indicators of health care quality and utilization for 14 groups of ambulatory-care-sensitive conditions based on routine data. These may improve the provision of health care by informing discussions in quality circles and other meetings of networks of physicians who share the same patients. METHODS: Our set of indicators was developed as part of the larger Accountable Care in Deutschland (ACD) project using a pragmatic consensus approach. The six stages of the approach drew upon a review of the literature; the expertise of physicians, health services researchers, and representatives of physician associations and statutory health insurers; and the results of a pilot study with six informal network meetings of office-based physicians who share the same patients. RESULTS: The process resulted in a set of 248 general and disease specific indicators for 14 disease groups. The set provides information on the quality of care provided and on patient pathways, covering patient characteristics, physician visits, ambulatory care processes, pharmaceutical prescriptions and outcome indicators. The disease groups with the most indicators were ischemic heart diseases, diabetes and heart failure. CONCLUSION: Our set of indicators provides useful information on patients' health care use, health care processes and health outcomes for 14 commonly treated groups of ambulatory-care-sensitive conditions. This information can inform discussions in interdisciplinary quality circles in the ambulatory sector and foster patient-centered care.

Quit attempts and tobacco abstinence in primary care patients: follow-up of a pragmatic, two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial on brief stop-smoking advice - ABC versus 5As.

We developed a 3.5-h training for general practitioners (GPs) in delivering brief stop-smoking advice according to different methods (ABC, 5As). In a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial our training proved effective in increasing GP-delivered rates of such advice (from 13% to 33%). In this follow-up analysis we examined the effect of the training and compared ABC versus 5As on patient-reported quit attempts and point prevalence abstinence at weeks 4, 12 and 26 following GP consultation. Follow-up data were collected in 1937 smoking patients - independently of the receipt of GP advice - recruited before or after the training of 69 GPs. At week 26, ∼70% of the patients were lost to follow-up. All 1937 patients were included in an intention-to-treat analysis; missing outcome data were imputed. Quit attempts and abstinence rates did not differ significantly from pre- to post-training or between patients from the ABC versus the 5As group. However, ancillary analyses showed that patients who received GP advice compared to those who did not had two times higher odds of reporting a quit attempt at all follow-ups and abstinence at week 26. We reported that our training increases GP-delivered rates of stop-smoking advice, and the present analysis confirms that advice is associated with increased quit attempts and abstinence rates in patients. However, our training did not further improve these rates, which might be related to patients' loss to follow-up or to contextual factors, e.g. access to free evidence-based cessation treatment, which can hamper the transfer of GPs' advice into patients' behaviour change.

Training general practitioners in the ABC versus 5As method of delivering stop-smoking advice: a pragmatic, two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial.

This study assessed the effectiveness of a 3.5-h training session for general practitioners (GPs) in providing brief stop-smoking advice and compared two methods of giving advice - ABC versus 5As - on the rates of delivery of such advice and of recommendations of evidence-based smoking cessation treatment during routine consultations. A pragmatic, two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial was carried out including a pre-/post-design for the analyses of the primary outcome in 52 GP practices in Germany. Practices were randomised (1:1) to receive a 3.5-h training session (ABC or 5As). In total, 1937 tobacco-smoking patients, who consulted trained GPs in these practices in the 6 weeks prior to or following the training, were included. The primary outcome was patient-reported rates of GP-delivered stop-smoking advice prior to and following the training, irrespective of the training method. Secondary outcomes were patient-reported receipt of recommendation/prescription of behavioural therapy, pharmacotherapy or combination therapy for smoking cessation, and the effectiveness of ABC versus 5As regarding all outcomes. GP-delivered stop-smoking advice increased from 13.1% (n=136 out of 1039) to 33.1% (n=297 out of 898) following the training (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 3.25, 95% CI 2.34-4.51). Recommendation/prescription rates of evidence-based treatments were low (<2%) pre-training, but had all increased after training (e.g. behavioural support: aOR 7.15, 95% CI 4.02-12.74). Delivery of stop-smoking advice increased non-significantly (p=0.08) stronger in the ABC versus 5As group (aOR 1.71, 95% CI 0.94-3.12). A single training session in stop-smoking advice was associated with a three-fold increase in rates of advice giving and a seven-fold increase in offer of support. The ABC method may lead to higher rates of GP-delivered advice during routine consultations.

Effectiveness of training general practitioners to improve the implementation of brief stop-smoking advice in German primary care: study protocol of a pragmatic, 2-arm cluster randomised controlled trial (the ABCII trial).

BACKGROUND: The German clinical guideline on tobacco addiction recommends that general practitioners (GPs) provide brief stop-smoking advice to their patients according to the "5A" or the much briefer "ABC" method, but its implementation is insufficient. A lack of training is one barrier for GPs to provide such advice. Moreover, the respective effectiveness of a 5A or ABC training regarding subsequent delivery of stop-smoking advice has not been investigated. We developed a training for GPs according to both methods, and conducted a pilot study with process evaluation to optimize the trainings according to the needs of GPs. This study aims at evaluating the effectiveness of both trainings. METHODS: A pragmatic 2-arm cluster randomised controlled trial with a pre-post data collection will be conducted in 48 GP practices in North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany). GPs will be randomised to receive a 3.5-h-training in delivering either 5A or ABC, including peer coaching and intensive role plays with professional actors. The patient-reported primary outcome (receipt of GP advice to quit: yes/no) and secondary outcomes (recommendation rates of smoking cessation treatments, group comparison (5A versus ABC): receipt of GP advice to quit) will be collected in smoking patients routinely consulting their GP within 4 weeks prior, and 4 weeks following the training. Additional secondary outcomes will be collected at 4, 12 and 26 weeks following the consultation: use of cessation treatments during the last quit attempt (if so) since the GP consultation, and point-prevalence abstinence rates. The primary data analysis will be conducted using a mixed-effects logistic regression model with random effects for the cluster variable. DISCUSSION: If the training increases the rates of delivery of stop-smoking advice, it would offer a low-threshold strategy for the guideline implementation in German primary care. Should one method prove superior, a more specific guideline recommendation can be proposed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00012786); registered on 22th August 2017, prior to the first patient in.