Status exploration and analysis of regional hospice and palliative care networks in Germany: A protocol for a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Multi-professional cooperation between healthcare providers is a key quality criterion of hospice and palliative care. While hospice and palliative care networks can support cooperation on a local level, opportunities for wider cooperation through the establishment and development of regional hospice and palliative care networks in Germany have not yet been explored systematically. AIMS: The HOPAN study aims at: (1) identifying regional hospice and palliative care networks in Germany, (2) analysing these networks using an adapted quality assessment tool, and (3) proposing setting-sensitive recommendations for network development and exploring the benefits of these recommendations. METHODS: HOPAN is a prospective, observational, mixed-methods study comprising three work packages (WPs). In WP1, the stock of regional hospice and palliative care networks in Germany will be identified via database, literature, and internet research. In WP2a, focus groups will be conducted to adapt an existing maturity model for healthcare networks to regional hospice and palliative care networks. In WP2b, a questionnaire will be sent to each identified regional hospice and palliative care network to gain insight into their structure and status of development. In WP2c, group discussions will be conducted to develop setting-sensitive recommendations for these networks. Finally, in WP3, these recommendations will be sent to all participating hospice and palliative care networks, and the benefits of the recommendations will be evaluated via a questionnaire. DISCUSSION: Empirically developed setting-sensitive recommendations should enable the systematic establishment and management of regional hospice and palliative care networks in Germany, considering the specific needs and potential of each network. The study findings are expected to improve the overall development of hospice and palliative care services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was prospectively registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien) (Registration N° DRKS00030629; date of registration: 02 November 2022). The study is searchable under the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal of the World Health Organization, under the German Clinical Trials Register number.

Implementation, barriers, and recommendations for further development of advance care planning for the last phase of life in nursing homes in Germany (Gut-Leben): protocol for a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Nursing home entry often marks the transition into the end-of-life. In 2018, Germany legally introduced reimbursement for advance care planning (ACP according to § 132 g SGB V) in nursing homes that applied for ACP approval to improve end-of-life care. The Gut-Leben project aims to evaluate the implementation and barriers of ACP in nursing homes in Germany, with a special focus on the federal state of Lower Saxony, and provide practical recommendations for further development of end-of-life care. METHODS: This mixed-methods study spreads across five work packages (WP) over a three-year period. WP 1 will explore the approval process, implementation, and barriers to ACP in nursing homes. Data will be collected through a national postal survey in a random sample of n = 600. WP 2 will explore whether documented ACP reports are applicable as a data source for research (expecting up to 500 available ACP reports). In WP 3a and 3b, data on the ACP process will be collected in n = 15 approved nursing homes in Lower Saxony over a 12-months period. For WP 3a and WP 3b, data on ACP conversations (n = 600) and on end-of-life care paths (n = 300) will be collected by facilitators and nurses of the respective nursing homes. In WP 4, residents' characteristics upon entry and changes in these characteristics over the length of stay are analyzed, utilizing claims data from the AOK Lower Saxony (expected sample of about 100,000 people entering nursing homes over a 10-years period). WP 5 connects, interprets, and reflects on the findings from WP 1-4 through focus groups and individual interviews with facilitators, nursing staff, residents, relatives, and care providers. Within a participatory approach, a practice advisory board will be set up existing of personal of nursing homes and will be closely involved in the whole research process. DISCUSSION: In summary, the Gut-Leben project provides insight into the implementation and barriers of ACP in nursing homes according to German legislation for the first time, including practitioners' and residents' perspectives. Insights will help the further development of ACP in Germany through practical recommendations based on quantitative and qualitative data.

[Patients treated by general practitioners in a university emergency department before and after implementation of a triage system]. / Allgemeinmedizinische Behandlungsfälle in einer universitären Notaufnahme vor und nach Einführung eines strukturierten Ersteinschätzungssystems.

BACKGROUND: In a university emergency department (ED), patients with low treatment urgency and general medical complaints are assigned to general practitioners within the ED. The Emergency Severity Index (ESI) was implemented to determine the urgency of treatment. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of the ESI implementation on the patient population treated by general practitioners and to show the distribution of ESI categories among these patients. METHODS: Comparison of emergency patients treated by general practitioners over 6 months before (t0) and after (t1) ESI implementation using routine data and an evaluation form to be completed by the general practitioner. The analysis was carried out descriptively and using the Χ2 test and t­test. RESULTS: At t0, 615 treatment cases and at t1 751 cases were analyzed. There were no significant differences in age, gender, the proportion of patients being referred to ED, or hospital admissions. The ESI classification was predominantly in the low urgency categories ESI 5 (37%) and ESI 4 (46%), with 8% of patients in ESI 3 or 2. The predicted resource needs matched for 76% of patients in ESI 5, for 36% in ESI 4, and for 44% of patients in ESI 3. Hospital admission was required for 3% of ESI 5 patients and 7% of ESI 4 patients. CONCLUSION: Even for patients with low treatment urgency, hospital admission may be indicated. In addition, differences from the predicted resource requirements indicate triaging problems in the patient population studied. Thus, the ESI assessment does not seem suitable to redirect patients to non-ED-based outpatient care.

Structured implementation of the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool in general practice - A prospective interventional study with follow-up.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) play a key role in the provision of primary palliative care (PC). The identification of patients who might benefit from PC and the timely initiation of patient-centred PC measures at the end of life are essential, yet challenging. Although different tools exist to support these key tasks, a structured approach is often missing. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed at implementing the German version of the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT-DE™) in general practices, following a structured and regional approach, in order to evaluate the effects of this tool on the identification of patients with potential PC needs and the initiation of patient-centred PC measures. METHODS: The intervention of this mixed-methods study comprised a standardised training of 52 GPs from 34 general practices in two counties in Lower Saxony, Germany, on the use of the SPICT-DE™. The SPICT-DE™ is a clinical tool which supports the identification of patients with potential PC needs. Subsequently, over a period of 12 months, GPs applied the SPICT-DE™ in daily practice with adult patients with chronic, progressive diseases, and completed a follow-up survey 6 months after the initial patient assessment. The outcome parameters were alterations in the patient's clinical situation, and the type and number of initiated patient-centred PC measures during the follow-up interval. Additionally, 12 months after the standardised training, GPs provided feedback on their application of the SPICT-DE™. RESULTS: A total of 43 GPs (n = 15 female, median age 53 years) out of an initial sample of 52 trained GPs assessed 580 patients (n = 345 female, median age 84 years) with mainly cardiovascular (47%) and cancer (33%) diseases. Follow-up of 412 patients revealed that 231 (56%) experienced at least one critical incident in their disease progression (e.g. acute crisis), 151 (37%) had at least one hospital admission, and 141 (34%) died. A review of current treatment/medication (76%) and a clarification of treatment goals (53%) were the most frequently initiated patient-centred PC measures. The majority of GPs deemed the SPICT-DE™ practical (85%) and stated an intention to continue applying the tool in daily practice (66%). CONCLUSIONS: The SPICT-DE™ is a practical tool that supports the identification of patients at risk of deterioration or dying and promotes the initiation of patient-centred PC measures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (N° DRKS00015108; 22/01/2019).

MediQuit - an electronic deprescribing tool: a pilot study in German primary care; GPs' and patients' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) are the central coordinators for patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in most health care systems. They are entrusted with the challenging task of deprescribing when inappropriate polypharmacy is present. MediQuit (MQu) is a newly developed electronic tool that guides through a deprescribing consultation. It facilitates the identification of a medicine to be discontinued (stage 1), a shared decision-making process weighing the pros and cons (stage 2), and equips patients with take-home instructions on how to discontinue the drug and monitor its impact (stage 3). We here aim to evaluate utility and acceptance of MQu from GPs' and patients' perspectives. METHODS: Uncontrolled feasibility study, in which 16 GPs from two regions in Germany were invited to use MQu in consultations with their multimorbid patients. We collected quantitative data on demography, utility and acceptance of MQu and performed descriptive statistical analyses. RESULTS: Ten GPs performed 41 consultations using MQu. Identification (step 1) and implementation elements (Step 3) were perceived most helpful by GPs. Whereas, shared-decision making elements (step 2) revealed room for improvement. Patients appreciated the use of MQu. They were broadly satisfied with the deprescribing consultation (85%) and with their decision made regarding their medication (90%). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of MQu in general practice generally seems possible. Patients welcome consultations targeting medication optimization. GPs were satisfied with the support of MQu and likewise gave important hints for future development.

MediQuit, an Electronic Deprescribing Tool for Patients on Polypharmacy: Results of a Feasibility Study in German General Practice.

BACKGROUND: Deprescribing is an important task for general practitioners (GPs) in the face of risky polypharmacy. The electronic tool "MediQuit" was developed to guide GPs and patients through a deprescribing consultation that entails a drug-selection phase, shared decision making, and advice on safe implementation. OBJECTIVES: A pilot study was conducted to determine the target group of patients that is selected for consultation and to assess the impact, patient involvement, and feasibility of the tool. METHODS: This was an uncontrolled pilot study. GPs from two German regions were invited to use MediQuit in consultations with a view to deprescribing one drug, if appropriate. They selected patients on the basis of broad inclusion criteria. Collected data entailed participants' characteristics, patients' medication lists, deprescribed drugs, and feasibility assessments. Patients were contacted shortly after the consultation and again after 4 weeks. RESULTS: In total, 16 GPs agreed to participate, of whom ten actually performed deprescribing consultations. They selected 41 predominately older patients on excessive polypharmacy. Deprescribing was achieved in 70% of consultations in agreement with patients. Drugs deprescribed were symptom-lowering and preventive drugs (mainly anatomical therapeutic chemical classes A and C). GPs found MediQuit useful in initiating communication on this issue and enhancing deliberations for a deprescribing decision. The median consultation length was 15 min (interquartile range 10-20). At follow-up, GPs and patients infrequently disagreed on which drug(s) was discontinued, and GPs rated patient involvement higher than did patients themselves. DISCUSSION: MediQuit assists in identifying concrete deprescribing opportunities, patient involvement, and shared decision making. The three-step deprescribing procedure is well-accepted once initial organizational efforts are overcome. After revision, further studies are needed to enhance the quality of evidence on acceptance and effectiveness.

Professional roles of general practitioners, community pharmacists and specialist providers in collaborative medication deprescribing - a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative care approaches between general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists have received international recognition for medication optimization and deprescribing efforts. Although specialist providers have been shown to influence deprescribing, their profession so far remains omitted from collaborative care approaches for medication optimization. Similarly, while explorative studies on role perception and collaboration between GPs and pharmacists grow, interaction with specialists for medication optimization is neglected. Our qualitative study therefore aims to explore GPs', community pharmacists' and specialist providers' role perceptions of deprescribing, and to identify interpersonal as well as structural factors that may influence collaborative medication optimization approaches. METHOD: Seven focus-group discussions with GPs, community pharmacists and community specialists were conducted in Hesse and Lower Saxony, Germany. The topic guide focused on views and experiences with deprescribing with special attention to inter-professional collaboration. We conducted conventional content analysis and conceptualized emerging themes using the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS: Twenty-six GPs, four community pharmacists and three community specialists took part in the study. The main themes corresponded to the four domains 'Social/professional role and identity' (1), 'Social influences' (2), 'Reinforcement' (3) and ´Environmental context and resources' (4) which were further described by beliefs statements, that is inductively developed key messages. For (1), GPs emerged as central medication managers while pharmacists and specialists were assigned confined or subordinated tasks in deprescribing. Social influences (2) encompassed patients' trust in GPs as a support, while specialists and pharmacists were believed to threaten GPs' role and deprescribing attempts. Reinforcements (3) negatively affected GPs' and pharmacists' effort in medication optimization by social reprimand and lacking reward. Environmental context (4) impeded deprescribing efforts by deficient reimbursement and resources as well as fragmentation of care, while informational and gate-keeping resources remained underutilized. CONCLUSION: Understanding stakeholders' role perceptions on collaborative deprescribing is a prerequisite for joint approaches to medication management. We found that clear definition and dissemination of roles and responsibilities are premise for avoiding intergroup conflicts. Role performance and collaboration must further be supported by structural factors like adequate reimbursement, resources and a transparent continuity of care.

Generic instruments for drug discontinuation in primary care: A systematic review.

AIMS: The aim of this systematic review was to identify generic instruments for drug discontinuation in patients with polypharmacy in the primary care setting. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE, 8 guideline databases (AWMF, NICE, NGC, SIGN, NHMRC, CPG, KCE), the Cochrane Library and grey literature (Google) in 2016 and 2017. Two independent researchers screened and analysed data. The drug discontinuation instruments of the included publications were described and classified. RESULTS: We identified 16 relevant publications. Here we found complex algorithms as well as instruments composed of distinct sequential steps. Two guidelines are constructed as electronic web-applications. Instruments revealed diverging emphases on the stages of deprescribing, i.e. preparation, drug evaluation, decision-making and implementation. Accordingly, 3 types of instruments emerged: general frameworks, detailed drug assessment tools and comprehensive discontinuation guidelines. CONCLUSION: Diverse generic instruments exist for different areas of applications in regard to drug discontinuation. However, there is still a need for practical and user-friendly tools that support physicians in communicational aspects, visualise trade-offs and also enhance patient involvement.

Post-discharge adjustment of medication in geriatric patients : A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known to what extent general practitioners (GP) change hospital discharge medications in older patients. OBJECTIVE: This prospective cohort study aimed to analyze medication changes at the interface between hospital and community in terms of quality, quantity and type of drugs. METHODS: A total of 121 out of 248 consecutively enrolled patients admitted to an acute geriatric hospital unit participated in the study. Medication regimens were recorded at admission and discharge and 4 weeks after hospital discharge the general practitioners in charge were contacted to provide the current medication charts. Changes in the extent of polypharmacy, in the type of drugs using anatomical therapeutic chemical classification (ATC) codes and potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) were analyzed. RESULTS: Medication charts could be obtained for 98 participants in primary care. Only 21% of these patients remained on the original discharge medication. Overall, the average number of medications rose from hospital admission (6.58 SD ± 3.45) to discharge (6.96 SD ± 3.49) and again post-discharge in general practice (7.22 SD ± 3.68). The rates of patients on excessive polypharmacy (≥10 drugs) and on PIM were only temporarily reduced during hospital stay. The GPs stopped anti-infective drugs (ATC-J) and prescribed more antirheumatic drugs (ATC-M). Although no significant net changes occurred in other ATC groups, a substantial number of drugs were interchanged regarding the subgroups. CONCLUSION: The study found that GPs extensively adjusted geriatric discharge medications. Whereas some changes may be necessary due to alterations in patients' state of health, a thorough communication between hospital doctors and GPs may level off different prescribing cultures and contribute to consistency in medication across sectors.

How older patients prioritise their multiple health problems: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with multimorbidity often receive diverse treatments; they are subjected to polypharmacy and to a high treatment burden. Hence it is advocated that doctors set individual health and treatment priorities with their patients. In order to apply such a concept, doctors will need a good understanding of what causes patients to prioritise some of their problems over others. This qualitative study explores what underlying reasons patients have when they appraise their health problems as more or less important. METHODS: We undertook semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 34 patients (aged 70 years and over) in German general practices. Initially, patients received a comprehensive geriatric assessment, on the basis of which they rated the importance of their uncovered health problems. Subsequently, they were interviewed as to why they considered some of their problems important and others not. Transcripts were analysed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Patients considered their health problems important, if they were severe, constant, uncontrolled, risky or if they restricted daily activities, autonomy and social inclusion. Important problems often correlated with negative feelings. Patients considered problems unimportant, if they were related to a bearable degree of suffering, less restrictions in activities, or psychological adjustment to diseases. Altogether different reasons occurred on the subject of preventive health issues. CONCLUSIONS: Patients assess health problems as important if they interfere with what they want from life (life values and goals). Psychological adjustment, by contrast, facilitates a downgrading of the importance. Asking patients with multimorbidity, which health problems are important, may guide physicians to treatment priorities and health problems in need of empowerment.

Treatment of ambulant patients by a general practitioner within a university hospital's emergency department - follow-up study of patients' behaviour shortly afterwards.

Aims: Hospital emergency departments (ED) face an increasing number of outpatient cases. Therefore, Hannover Medical School employs general practitioners for the treatment of walk-in patients within the ED. Up to now, little has been reported on how these patients behave after treatment in the ED. This study aims to assess these patients' behaviour after attending the ED, to find out how many patients consult a physician subsequently, and to explore patients' utilisation of health care in case of similar health problems. Methods: For this follow-up study, patients treated at Hannover Medical School's ED during daytime (Monday - Friday) by a general practitioner (GP) within a period of six weeks in 2016 were subsequently followed up by phone interviews 10-15 days after their consultation. Main topics in the semi-structured interview guide were patients' behaviour after leaving the ED, subsequent contacts with medical care, and how patients would behave in the future given similar symptoms. Data were transferred to a SPSS database, and descriptive data analyses were performed. Results: In total, 171 patients were screened for inclusion, and 91 participated in the study. About half (n=48; 53%) of them were male, and the mean age was 46.6 years. After visiting the GP in the ED, 62 patients (68%) went directly home. Another 14 (15%) took up regular activities (e.g. work, university), while eight patients visited their usual GP practice. Within 10-15 days, 52 patients (57%) had had an appointment with a physician. In most cases this was a GP (n=34; 37%); 12 patients visited a specialist and six patients visited both a GP and a specialist. Physician appointments took place within an average of 3.4 days after treatment in the ED. In case of similar complaints, 37 patients (41%) would visit the ED again rather than visiting the GP, whereas 36% would consult the GP first, and 11% would visit a specialist first. Conclusion: A noteworthy number of patients considered visiting the ED again with similar symptoms instead of visiting a GP in ambulatory care. Consequently our findings suggest that the ED itself plays a minor role in navigating patients' utilisation of medical treatment.

What is important, what needs treating? How GPs perceive older patients' multiple health problems: a mixed method research study.

BACKGROUND: GPs increasingly deal with multiple health problems of their older patients. They have to apply a hierarchical management approach that considers priorities to balance competing needs for treatment. Yet, the practice of setting individual priorities in older patients is largely unexplored. This paper analyses the GPs' perceptions on important and unimportant health problems and how these affect their treatment. METHODS: GPs appraised the importance of health problems for a purposive sample of their older patients in semi-structured interviews. Prior to the interviews, the GPs had received a list of their patients' health problems resulting from a geriatric assessment and were asked to rate the importance of each identified problem. In the interviews the GPs subsequently explained why they considered certain health problems important or not and how this affected treatment. Data was analysed using qualitative content analysis and quantitative methods. RESULTS: The problems GPs perceive as important are those that are medical and require active treatment or monitoring, or that induce empathy or awareness but cannot be assisted further. Unimportant problems are those that are well managed problems and need no further attention as well as age-related conditions or functional disabilities that provoke fatalism, or those considered outside the GPs' responsibility. Statements of professional actions are closely linked to explanations of important problems and relate to physical problems rather than functional and social patient issues. CONCLUSIONS: GPs tend to prioritise treatable clinical conditions. Treatment approaches are, however, vague or missing for complex chronic illnesses and disabilities. Here, patient empowerment strategies are of value and need to be developed and implemented. The professional concepts of ageing and disability should not impede but rather foster treatment and care. To this end, GPs need to be able to delegate care to a functioning primary care team. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Trial Register (DRKS): 00000792.