Clinical effectiveness of patient-targeted feedback following depression screening in general practice (GET.FEEDBACK.GP): an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicentre, three-arm, observer-blinded, randomised controlled trial in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Screening for depression in primary care alone is not sufficient to improve clinical outcomes. However, targeted feedback of the screening results to patients might result in beneficial effects. The GET.FEEDBACK.GP trial investigated whether targeted feedback of the depression screening result to patients, in addition to feedback to general practitioners (GPs), leads to greater reductions in depression severity than GP feedback alone or no feedback. METHODS: The GET.FEEDBACK.GP trial was an investigator-initiated, multicentre, three-arm, observer-blinded, randomised controlled trial. Depression screening was conducted electronically using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) in 64 GP practices across five regions in Germany while patients were waiting to see their GP. Currently undiagnosed patients (aged ≥18 years) who screened positive for depression (PHQ-9 score ≥10), were proficient in the German language, and had a personal consultation with a GP were randomly assigned (1:1:1) into a group that received no feedback on their depression screening result, a group in which only the GP received feedback, or a group in which both GP and patient received feedback. Randomisation was stratified by treating GP and PHQ-9 depression severity. Trial staff were masked to patient enrolment and study group allocation and GPs were masked to the feedback recieved by the patient. Written feedback, including the screening result and information on depression, was provided to the relevant groups before the consultation. The primary outcome was PHQ-9-measured depression severity at 6 months after randomisation. An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted for patients who had at least one follow-up visit. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03988985) and is complete. FINDINGS: Between July 17, 2019, and Jan 31, 2022, 25 279 patients were approached for eligibility screening, 17 150 were excluded, and 8129 patients completed screening, of whom 1030 (12·7%) screened positive for depression. 344 patients were randomly assigned to receive no feedback, 344 were assigned to receive GP-targeted feedback, and 339 were assigned to receive GP-targeted plus patient-targeted feedback. 252 (73%) patients in the no feedback group, 252 (73%) in the GP-targeted feedback group, and 256 (76%) in the GP-targeted and patient-targeted feedback group were included in the analysis of the primary outcome at 6 months, which reflected a follow-up rate of 74%. Gender was reported as female by 637 (62·1%) of 1025 participants, male by 384 (37·5%), and diverse by four (0·4%). 169 (16%) of 1026 patients with available migration data had a migration background. Mean age was 39·5 years (SD 15·2). PHQ-9 scores improved for each group between baseline and 6 months by -4·15 (95% CI -4·99 to -3·30) in the no feedback group, -4·19 (-5·04 to -3·33) in the GP feedback group, and -4·91 (-5·76 to -4·07) in the GP plus patient feedback group, with no significant difference between the three groups (global p=0·13). The difference in PHQ-9 scores when comparing the GP plus patient feedback group with the no feedback group was -0·77 (-1·60 to 0·07, d=-0·16) and when comparing with the GP-only feedback group was -0·73 (-1·56 to 0·11, d=-0·15). No increase in suicidality was observed as an adverse event in either group. INTERPRETATION: Providing targeted feedback to patients and GPs after depression screening does not significantly reduce depression severity compared with GP feedback alone or no feedback. Further research is required to investigate the potential specific effectiveness of depression screening with systematic feedback for selected subgroups. FUNDING: German Innovation Fund. TRANSLATION: For the German translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

[Attitudes of general practitioners and medical practice assistants towards the delegation of medical services: Results of a survey in Berlin, Brandenburg and Thuringia]. / Einstellungen von Hausärzt:innen und Medizinischen Fachangestellten zur Delegation ärztlicher Leistungen ­ Ergebnisse einer Befragung in Berlin, Brandenburg und Thüringen.

INTRODUCTION: The delegation of tasks and responsibilities from general practitioners (GPs) to medical practice assistants (MPAs) can contribute to ensuring primary care in Germany. The aim of the study was to collect and analyze attitudes and procedures of GPs and MPAs regarding the delegation of physician-related tasks and activities. METHODOLOGY: A self-designed, piloted questionnaire was sent to all GPs listed within the regional Associations of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (KV) in Thuringia, Berlin, and Brandenburg (n=5,516) and their MPAs. Participants were asked to indicate which physician-related activities were already delegated and on which occasions further delegations could be considered. RESULTS: 890 GPs (response rate: 16.1%) and 566 MPAs participated in the written survey. The participants were predominantly female and most of them worked in urban areas. Numerous activities, such as medical history taking, triage, Disease Management Program (DMP) controls, vaccinations and home visits, have already been delegated. The willingness to delegate further tasks (e. g., follow-up prescriptions and referrals, independent takeover of simple consultations, assessing the necessity of physician consultation) was high. CONCLUSION: The survey showed a high level of willingness of both occupational groups to delegate physician-related activities to MFAs. An expansion seems possible under certain conditions. Many activities have already been delegated to MPAs in primary care practices. Our survey provides suggestions regarding further tasks suitable for delegation, some of which go beyond the delegation agreement valid in Germany.

Patient perspective on task shifting from general practitioners to medical practice assistants - a quantitative survey in Germany.

INTRODUCTION: Various developments result in increasing workloads in general practices. New models of care and a restructuring of the division of tasks could provide relief. One approach is to extend the delegation of medical tasks from general practitioners (GPs) to medical practice assistants (MPAs). So far, there has been a lack of information about specific situations in which patients are willing to be treated exclusively by MPAs. METHODS: In three German federal states, patients who visited a general practice were surveyed exploratively and cross-sectionally with a self-designed, paper-based questionnaire. The data were analysed descriptively and multivariate. A mixed binary logistic regression model was calculated to account for cluster effects at practice level (random intercept model). The dependent variable was patients' acceptance of task delegation. RESULTS: A total of 1861 questionnaires from 61 general practices were included in the analysis. Regarding the current problem/request, a total of 30% of respondents could imagine being treated only by MPAs. Regarding theoretical reasons for consultation, more than half of the patients agreed to be treated by MPAs. According to the regression model, MPAs were preferred when patients were younger (10-year OR = 0.84, 95%-CI [0.75, 0.93]) or had a less complicated issue (OR = 0.44, 95%-CI [0.26, 0.8]). For four current problems/requests ("acute complaints" OR = 0.27, 95%-CI [0.17, 0.45], "routine health check" OR = 0.48, 95%-CI [0.3, 0.79], "new problem" OR = 0.13, 95%-CI [0.06, 0.28], "known problem" OR = 0.16, 95%-CI [0.1, 0.27]) patients prefer to be treated by GPs instead of MPAs. DISCUSSION: For the first time, statements could be made on patients' acceptance of task delegation in relation to current and theoretical reasons for treatment in general practices in Germany. The discrepancy in response behaviour on a theoretical and individual level could be explained by different contexts of questions and differences at practice level. Overall, patients seem to be open to increased delegation of medical tasks, depending on the reason for treatment. Selection and response biases should be considered in the interpretation. CONCLUSION: The results are not completely opposed to an extension of task delegation. Further interventional studies could provide information on the possible effects of expansion of delegable tasks.

[Medical care in GP practices during the Covid-19 pandemic: A questionnaire-based survey among general practitioners and medical practice assistants asking for their opinion about changes, needs and burdens]. / Die hausärztliche Versorgung während der COVID-19-Pandemie: eine Fragebogenerhebung unter Hausärzt*innen und Medizinischen Fachangestellten zu ihrer Perspektive auf Veränderungen, Bedarfe und Belastungen.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus pandemic did not only result in changes in the provision and utilization of health care services in general practice but also in an increased workload for physicians and medical practice assistants. The VeCo practice study retrospectively explores the experiences of both professional groups two years after the start of the pandemic. METHODS: In March and April 2022, general practitioners and medical practice assistants in the three German federal states of Berlin, Brandenburg and Thuringia were asked to complete a paper-based questionnaire. RESULTS: 657 general practitioners and 762 medical practice assistants completed the questionnaire. Both professional groups agreed to statements indicating a reduction in regular health care provisions. Nevertheless, 74% of the physicians and 82.9% of the medical practice assistants considered the health care provided to their patients during the pandemic as good. This was only possible through considerable additional effort and stress. While more than half of both groups reported that work was still enjoyable, three quarters of both groups stated that the challenges arising from the pandemic outstripped their capacity. Both groups would like to receive more recognition from society (medical practice assistants 93.2%, general practitioners 85.3%) and from their patients (87.7% and 69.9%, respectively). DISCUSSION: General practitioners and medical practice assistants reduced regular health care provision but were still able to maintain a good quality of care for their patients during the pandemic. It became clear that more appreciation and adequate financial compensation are necessary to ensure long-term sustainability of GP care. CONCLUSION: The subjective view of general practitioners and medical practice assistants on their health care provision shows that appreciation and adequate financial renumeration, particularly when working under most difficult conditions, are necessary to increase the attractiveness of a career in general practice, for both physicians and medical practice assistants.