Risk factors for long-term invasive mechanical ventilation: a longitudinal study using German health claims data.

BACKGROUND: Long-term invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is a major burden for those affected and causes high costs for the health care system. Early risk assessment is a prerequisite for the best possible support of high-risk patients during the weaning process. We aimed to identify risk factors for long-term IMV within 96 h (h) after the onset of IMV. METHODS: The analysis was based on data from one of Germany's largest statutory health insurance funds; patients who received IMV ≥ 96 h and were admitted in January 2015 at the earliest and discharged in December 2017 at the latest were analysed. OPS and ICD codes of IMV patients were considered, including the 365 days before intubation and 30 days after discharge. Long-term IMV was defined as evidence of invasive home mechanical ventilation (HMV), IMV ≥ 500 h, or readmission with (re)prolonged ventilation. RESULTS: In the analysis of 7758 hospitalisations, criteria for long-term IMV were met in 38.3% of cases, of which 13.9% had evidence of HMV, 73.1% received IMV ≥ 500 h and/or 40.3% were re-hospitalised with IMV. Several independent risk factors were identified (p < 0.005 each), including pre-diagnoses such as pneumothorax (OR 2.10), acute pancreatitis (OR 2.64), eating disorders (OR 1.99) or rheumatic mitral valve disease (OR 1.89). Among ICU admissions, previous dependence on an aspirator or respirator (OR 5.13), and previous tracheostomy (OR 2.17) were particularly important, while neurosurgery (OR 2.61), early tracheostomy (OR 3.97) and treatment for severe respiratory failure such as positioning treatment (OR 2.31) and extracorporeal lung support (OR 1.80) were relevant procedures in the first 96 h after intubation. CONCLUSION: This comprehensive analysis of health claims has identified several risk factors for the risk of long-term ventilation. In addition to the known clinical risks, the information obtained may help to identify patients at risk at an early stage. Trial registration The PRiVENT study was retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05260853). Registered at March 2, 2022.

Implementation of integrated care for type 2 diabetes Mellitus and Periodontitis in Germany: study protocol for a practice-based and cluster-randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 Diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and periodontitis share common risk factors and influence one another. However, primary care and oral health care continue to operate separate from each other and fail to synchronize care for patients with T2DM and periodontitis. The purpose of this practice-based trial is to evaluate the implementation of a new integrated care pathway for patients with T2DM and periodontitis. The new approach integrates a screening for T2DM risk in dental care settings in patients with periodontitis, a screening for periodontitis risk in primary care settings in patients with T2DM, and mutual referrals between dentists and primary care physicians. METHODS: Two practice-based studies will be carried out in parallel: (i) In dental care settings: a practice-based, multi-centric, cluster-randomized, controlled trial with a control and an intervention group; (ii) in primary care settings: a practice-based, multi-centric, non-randomized, controlled trial with a synthetic control group calculated from claims data. Following a two-step recruitment approach, 166 dentists and 248 general practitioners will be recruited, who themselves will recruit a total of 3808 patients in their practices. Patient data will be collected at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months after study enrollment. The evaluation comprises: (i) impact evaluation, using a hierarchical linear mixed model; (ii) process evaluation, based on surveys alongside the trials; (iii) economic evaluation. In addition, a Discrete-Choice-Experiment will identify provider's payment preferences for the new care approach. DISCUSSION: Upon successful implementation, the intervention will enable health care providers to detect a risk for T2DM and periodontitis in patients at an early stage, thus providing patients an opportunity for timely diagnosis and therapy. Ultimately, this can lead to increased quality of life and reduced health care expenditures. On a methodologic level, the project provides novel insights into a complex intervention on the intersection of general practice and dental care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was prospectively registered at the German Clinical Trials Register ( https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00030587 ) on 3. July 2023 under ID "DRKS00030587".

The Agreement Between Diagnoses as Stated by Patients and Those Contained in Routine Health Insurance Data.

BACKGROUND: The frequency of medical diagnoses is a figure of central importance in epidemiology and health services research. Prevalence estimates vary depending on the underlying data. For a better understanding of such discrepancies, we compared patients' diagnoses as reported by themselves in response to our questioning with their diagnoses as stated in the routine data of their health insurance carrier. METHODS: For 6558 adults insured by BARMER, one of the statutory health insurance carriers in Germany, we compared the diagnoses of various illnesses over a twelve-month period, as reported by the patients themselves in response to our questioning (October to December 2021), with their ICD-10-based diagnosis codes (Q4/2020-Q3/2021). The degree of agreement was assessed with two kappa values, sensitivity, and specificity. RESULTS: The patients' stated diagnoses of diabetes and hypertension agreed well or very well with their diagnosis codes, with kappa and PABAK values near 0.8, as well as very high sensitivity and specificity. Moderately good agreement with respect to kappa was seen for the diagnoses of heart failure (0.4), obesity, anxiety disorder, depression, and coronary heart disease (0.5 each). The poorest agreement (kappa ≤ 0.3) was seen for posttraumatic stress disorder, alcohol-related disorder, and mental and somatoform disorder. Agreement was worse with increasing age. CONCLUSION: Diagnoses as stated by patients often differ from those found in routine health insurance data. Discrepancies that can be considered negligible were found for only two of the 11 diseases that we studied. Our investigation confirms that these two sources of data yield different estimates of prevalence. Age is a key factor; further reasons for the discrepancies should be investigated, and avoidable causes should be addressed.

Evaluating the Population-Based Usage and Benefit of Digitally Collected Patient-Reported Outcomes and Experiences in Patients With Chronic Diseases: The PROMchronic Study Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Chronic diseases are associated with a high disease burden. Under- and overprovision of care as well as quality variation between health care providers persists, while current quality indicators rarely capture the patients' perspective. Capturing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as well as patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) is becoming more and more important to identify gaps in care provision, prioritize services most valuable to patients, and aid patients' self-management. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to measure the potential benefits and effectiveness of using electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) and electronic patient-reported experience measures in a structured and population-based manner to enhance health care for chronic disease patients in Germany. METHODS: This prospective cohort study aims to evaluate the potential benefits of PROM usage in patients with chronic diseases. We evaluate whether (1) digitally collected PROMs and PREMs can be used for health system performance assessment by generating a representative response of chronically diseased individuals with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, and coronary artery disease across Germany, and (2) based on the PROMs and PREMs, low-value care can be identified. As patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are rarely presented back to patients, (3) this study also examines patients' reactions to their PROM scores in the form of digital PRO feedback. For these purposes, randomly selected patients from a nationwide German insurer are digitally surveyed with generic and disease-specific PROMs and PREMs, as well as additional questions on their health-related behavior, 4 times over 1 year. Individual PRO feedback is presented back to patients longitudinally and compared to a peer group after each survey period. Patient-reported data is linked with health insurance data. Response rates, changes in health and experience outcomes over time, self-reported changes in health behavior, and health care system usage will be analyzed. RESULTS: The PROMchronic study explores the usage of PROMs in patients with chronic diseases. Data collection began in October 2023, after the initial invitation letter. All the 200,000 potential patients have been invited to participate in the study. Data have not yet been analyzed. Publication of the interim results is planned for the autumn of 2024, and the results are planned to be published in 2025. CONCLUSIONS: We aim to fill the research gap on the population-based usage of PROMs and PREMs in patients with chronic diseases and add to the current understanding of PROM data-sharing with patients. The study's results can thereby inform whether a health care system-wide approach to collecting PROMs and PREMs can be used to identify low-value care, assess quality variation within and across chronic conditions, and determine whether PRO feedback is helpful and associated with any changes in patients' health behaviors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00031656; https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00031656. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/56487.

Outpatient Psychotherapy in Germany.

BACKGROUND: A structural reform of the German psychotherapy guideline in 2017 was intended to facilitate access to outpatient guideline psychotherapy. In the present study, we evaluate the effects of this reform in particular for patients with a comorbidity of mental disorders and chronic physical conditions (cMP). METHODS: Pre-post analyses of the two primary endpoints "percentage of mentally ill persons who have made an initial contact with a psychotherapist" and "waiting time for guideline psychotherapy" were carried out employing population-based and weighted routine statutory health insurance data from the German BARMER. The secondary endpoints included evaluations from the patients' perspective, based on a representative survey of patients in psychotherapy, and an overview of the health care situation based on data from the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung, KBV) (study registration number: DRKS00020344). RESULTS: From 2015 to 2018, the percentage of mentally ill persons who had made an initial contact with a psychotherapist rose moderately, from 3.7% (95% confidence interval, [3.6; 3.7]) to 3.9% [3.8; 3.9] among persons with cMP and from 7.3% [7.2; 7.4] to 7.6% [7.5; 7.7] among those with mental disorders but without any chronic physical condition (MnoP). The new structural elements were integrated into patient care. The interval of time between the initial contact and the beginning of guideline psychotherapy became longer in both groups, from a mean of 80.6 [79.4; 81.8] to 114.8 [113.4; 116.2] days among persons with complex disease and from 80.2 [79.2; 81.3] to 109.6 [108.4; 111.0] days among persons with non-complex disease; most patients considered the waiting time. Approximately 8% of the patients who sought psychotherapy reported that they had not obtained access to a psychotherapist. CONCLUSION: Neither in general nor for patients with cMP did the introduction of the structural reform appreciably lower the access barriers to psychotherapy. Further steps are needed so that outpatient care can meet the needs of all patients and particularly those with cMP.