Fall-risk-increasing drugs in older patients: the role of guidelines and GP-centred health care in Germany.

BACKGROUND: fall-risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs) are a ubiquitous issue, especially for older patients. As part of a German guideline for pharmacotherapy, from 2019, a new quality indicator for this patient group was developed to measure the percentage of patients receiving FRIDs. METHODS: patients, aged at least 65 years in 2020, insured by the Allgemeine OrtsKrankenkasse statutory health insurance (Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse, Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany) with a particular general practitioner (GP) were observed from 1 January to 31 December 2020 cross-sectionally. The intervention group received GP-centred health care. Within GP-centred health care, GPs have the role of gatekeepers for patients within the health system and are-in contrast to regular care GPs in addition to other commitments-obliged to regularly attend training sessions on appropriate pharmacotherapy. The control group received regular GP care. For both groups, we measured the percentage of patients receiving FRIDs as well as the occurrence of (fall-related) fractures as the main outcomes. To test our hypotheses, we performed multivariable regression modelling. RESULTS: a total of 634,317 patients were eligible for analysis. Within the intervention group (n = 422,364), we could observe a significantly reduced odds ratio (OR) for obtaining a FRID (OR = 0.842, confidence interval [CI]: [0.826, 0.859], P < 0.0001) in comparison to the control group (n = 211,953). Moreover, we could observe a significantly reduced chance for (fall-related) fractures in the intervention group (OR: 0.932, CI: [0.889, 0.975], P = 0.0071). CONCLUSIONS: the findings point in the direction that the health care providers' awareness of the potential danger of FRIDs for older patients is higher in the GP-centred care group.

[Acute respiratory tract infections and antibiotic prescriptions: What are patients' expectations?] / Akute Atemwegsinfekte und Antibiotikaverordnungen: Welche Erwartungen haben Patient*innen?

INTRODUCTION: The use of antibiotics in human medicine is partly responsible for the global increase in antibiotic resistance. Significant reductions in antibiotic prescribing were realised through educational campaigns, communication training and prescribing feedback. Based on data from the cluster-randomised CHANGE-3 trial, the present analysis focuses on the question of patient expectations for an antibiotic in acute respiratory infections. METHODS: 106 of 114 General Practitioner (GP) practices in Baden-Württemberg and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania took part in the study. 4736 patients who visited the practices with acute respiratory infections from October 2018 to May 2019 filled out a questionnaire after the doctor's consultation. The analysis was descriptive. RESULTS: 16.7 % of patients with acute respiratory infections reported receiving antibiotics from their GP. 13.3 % of patients had hoped for an antibiotic and 5.5 % stated that they had asked their GP for an antibiotic prescription. The lowest prescription rate for antibiotics was reported by patients who had received a diagnosis of influenza from their GP. With specific diagnoses differentiated from uncomplicated respiratory tract infection, an increase in both the number of antibiotics hoped for and the number of antibiotics prescribed was observed. DISCUSSION: Patients still receive antibiotics more often than they actually hope for. On the part of GPs, prescriptions may still be written because of perceived pressure from patients, but this is not reflected in patient expectations. In addition to dealing openly with patients' expectations, strengthening patients' health literacy, mindful doctor-patient communication and offered opportunities for re-presentation in the case of specific diagnoses could further reduce the perceived pressure on GPs.

Implementation fidelity in a multifaceted program to foster rational antibiotics use in primary care: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: The ARena study (Sustainable Reduction of Antimicrobial Resistance in German Ambulatory Care) is a three-arm, cluster randomized trial to evaluate a multifaceted implementation program in a German primary care setting. In the context of a prospective process evaluation conducted alongside ARena, this study aimed to document and explore fidelity of the implementation program. METHODS: This observational study is based on data generated in a three-wave survey of 312 participating physicians in the ARena program and attendance documentation. Measures concerned persistence of participation in the ARena program and adherence to intervention components (thematic quality circles, e-learning, basic expenditure reimbursements, additional bonus payments and a computerized decision support system). Participants' views on five domains of the implementation were also measured. Binary logistic and multiple linear regression analyses were used to explore which views on the implementation were associated with participants' adherence to quality circles and use of additional bonus compensation. RESULTS: The analysis of fidelity showed overall high persistence of participation in the intervention components across the three intervention arms (90,1%; 97,9%; 92,9%). 96.4% of planned quality circles were delivered to study participants and, across waves, 30.4% to 93% of practices participated; 56.1% of physicians attended the maximum of four quality circles. 84% of the practices (n = 158) with a minimum of one index patient received a performance-based additional bonus payment at least once. In total, bonus compensation was triggered for 51.8% of affected patients. Participation rate for e-learning (a prerequisite for reimbursement of project-related expenditure) covered 90.8% of practices across all intervention arms, with the highest rate in arm II (96.5%). Uptake of expenditure reimbursement was heterogeneous across study arms, with a mean rate of 86.5% (89.1% in arm I, 96.4% in arm II and 74.1% in arm III). Participants' views regarding participant responsiveness (OR = 2.298) 95% CI [1.598, 3.305] and Context (OR = 2.146) 95% CI [1.135, 4.055] affected additional bonus payment. Participants' views on participant responsiveness (Beta = 0.718) 95% CI [0.479, 0.957], Context (Beta = 0.323) 95% CI [0.055, 0.590] and Culture of shared decision-making (Beta = -0.334) 95% CI [-0.614, -0.053] affected quality circle attendance. CONCLUSION: This study showed an overall high fidelity to the implementation program. Participants' views on the implementation were associated with degree of intervention fidelity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN58150046.

Prevalence and patient-rated relevance of complexity factors in medication regimens of community-dwelling patients with polypharmacy.

PURPOSE: To describe the prevalence of complexity factors in the medication regimens of community-dwelling patients with more than five drugs and to evaluate the relevance of these factors for individual patients. METHODS: Data were derived from the HIOPP-6 trial, a controlled study conducted in 9 general practices which evaluated an electronic tool to detect and reduce complexity of drug treatment. The prevalence of complexity factors was based on the results of the automated analysis of 139 patients' medication data. The relevance assessment was based on the patients' rating of each factor in an interview (48 patients included for analysis). RESULTS: A median of 5 (range 0-21) complexity factors per medication regimen were detected and at least one factor was observed in 131 of 139 patients. Almost half of these patients found no complexity factor in their medication regimen relevant. CONCLUSION: In most medication regimens, complexity factors could be identified automatically, yet less than 15% of factors were indeed relevant for patients as judged by themselves. When assessing complexity of medication regimens, one should especially consider factors that are both particularly frequent and often challenging for patients, such as use of inhalers or tablet splitting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The HIOPP-6 trial was registered retrospectively on May 17, 2021, in the German Clinical Trials register under DRKS-ID DRKS00025257.

Task sharing in an interprofessional medication management program - a survey of general practitioners and community pharmacists.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacist-led medication review and medication management programs (MMP) are well-known strategies to improve medication safety and effectiveness. If performed interprofessionally, outcomes might even improve. However, little is known about task sharing in interprofessional MMP, in which general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists (CPs) collaboratively perform medication reviews and continuously follow-up on patients with designated medical and pharmaceutical tasks, respectively. In 2016, ARMIN (Arzneimittelinitiative Sachsen-Thüringen) an interprofessional MMP was launched in two German federal states, Saxony and Thuringia. The aim of this study was to understand how GPs and CPs share tasks in MMP when reviewing the patients' medication. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional postal survey among GPs and CPs who participated in the MMP. Participants were asked who completed which MMP tasks, e.g., checking drug-drug interactions, dosing, and side effects. In total, 15 MMP tasks were surveyed using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "I complete this task alone" to "GP/CP completes this task alone". The study was conducted between 11/2020 and 04/2021. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: In total, 114/165 (69.1%) GPs and 166/243 (68.3%) CPs returned a questionnaire. The majority of GPs and CPs reported (i) checking clinical parameters and medication overuse and underuse to be completed by GPs, (ii) checking storage conditions of drugs and initial compilation of the patient's medication including brown bag review being mostly performed by CPs, and (iii) checking side-effects, non-adherence, and continuous updating of the medication list were carried out jointly. The responses differed most for problems with self-medication and adding and removing over-the-counter medicines from the medication list. In addition, the responses revealed that some MMP tasks were not sufficiently performed by either GPs or CPs. CONCLUSIONS: Both GPs' and CPs' expertise are needed to perform MMP as comprehensively as possible. Future studies should explore how GPs and CPs can complement each other in MMP most efficiently.

Antibiotic prescribing for acute, non-complicated infections in primary care in Germany: baseline assessment in the cluster randomized trial ARena.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance is fueled by inappropriate use of antibiotics. Global and national strategies support rational use of antibiotics to retain treatment options and reduce resistance. In Germany, the ARena project (Sustainable reduction of antibiotic-induced antimicrobial resistance) intended to promote rational use of antibiotics for acute non-complicated infections by addressing network-affiliated physicians, primary care teams and patients through multiple interacting interventions. The present study documented patterns of antibiotic prescribing for patients with acute non-complicated infections who consulted a physician in these networks at the start of the ARena project. It explored variation across subgroups of patients and draws comparisons to prescribing patterns of non-targeted physicians. METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional analysis used mixed logistic regression models to explore factors associated with the primary outcome, which was the percentage of patient cases with acute non-complicated respiratory tract infections consulting primary care practices who were treated with antibiotics. Secondary outcomes concerned the prescribing of different types of antibiotics. Descriptive methods were used to summarize the data referring to targeted physicians in primary care networks, non-targeted physicians (reference group), and patient subgroups. RESULTS: Overall, antibiotic prescribing rates were 32.0% in primary care networks and 31.7% in the reference group. General practitioners prescribed antibiotics more frequently than other medical specialist groups (otolaryngologists vs. General practitioners OR = 0.465 CI = [0.302; 0.719], p < 0.001, pediatricians vs. General practitioners: OR = 0.369 CI = [0.135; 1.011], p = 0.053). Quinolone prescribing rates were 9.9% in primary care networks and 8.1% in reference group. Patients with comorbidities had a higher likelihood of receiving an antibiotic and quinolone prescription and were less likely to receive a guideline-recommended substance. Younger patients were less likely to receive antibiotics (OR = 0.771 CI = [0.636; 0.933], p = 0.008). Female gender was more likely to receive an antibiotic prescription (OR = 1.293 CI = [1.201, 1.392], p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study provided an overview of observed antibiotic prescribing for acute non-complicated respiratory tract infections in German primary care at the start of the ARena project. Findings indicate potential for improvement and will serve as comparator for the post-interventional outcome evaluation to facilitate describing of potential changes.

Promoting rational antibiotic prescribing for non-complicated infections: understanding social influence in primary care networks in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Primary care networks in Germany are formalized regional collaborations of physicians and other healthcare providers. Common goals are optimized healthcare processes and services for patients, enhanced communication, agency for professional concerns and strengthened economic power. In the ARena study (Sustainable reduction of antibiotic-induced antimicrobial resistance), 14 primary care networks in two federal German states aimed to promote appropriate antibiotics use for acute non-complicated infections by fostering awareness and understanding. Factors related to the role of primary care networks were to be identified. METHODS: For this study, audio-recorded telephone interviews were conducted with physicians, non-physician health professionals and stakeholder representatives. Pseudonymized verbatim transcripts were coded using thematic analysis. In-depth analysis was based on the inductive categories 'social support', 'social learning', 'social normative pressures' and 'social contagion' to reflect social influence processes. Data generated through a survey with physicians and non-physician health professionals were analyzed descriptively to foster understanding of the networks' potential impact on antibiotic prescribing. RESULTS: Social influence processes proved to be relevant regarding knowledge transfer, manifestation of best-practice care and self-reflection. Peer communication was seen as a great asset, the main reason for membership and affirmative for own perspectives. All interviewed physicians (n = 27) considered their network to be a strong support factor for daily routines, introduction of new routines, and continuity of care. They utilized network-offered training programs focusing on best practice guideline-oriented use of antibiotics and considered their networks supportive in dealing with patient expectations. A shared attitude combined with ARena intervention components facilitated reflective management of antibiotic prescribing. Non-physician health professionals (n = 11) also valued network peer exchange. They assumed their employers joined networks to offer improved and continuous care. Stakeholders (n = 7) expected networks and their members to be drivers for care optimization. CONCLUSION: Primary care networks play a crucial role in providing a platform for professional peer exchange, social support and reassurance. With regards to their impact on antibiotic prescribing for acute non-complicated infections, networks seem to facilitate and amplify quality improvement programs by providing a platform for refreshing awareness, knowledge and self-reflection among care providers. They are well suited to promote a rational use of antibiotics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN58150046. Registered 24 August 2017.

Development of an algorithm to detect and reduce complexity of drug treatment and its technical realisation.

BACKGROUND: The increasing complexity of current drug therapies jeopardizes patient adherence. While individual needs to simplify a medication regimen vary from patient to patient, a straightforward approach to integrate the patients' perspective into decision making for complexity reduction is still lacking. We therefore aimed to develop an electronic, algorithm-based tool that analyses complexity of drug treatment and supports the assessment and consideration of patient preferences and needs regarding the reduction of complexity of drug treatment. METHODS: Complexity factors were selected based on literature and expert rating and specified for integration in the automated assessment. Subsequently, distinct key questions were phrased and allocated to each complexity factor to guide conversation with the patient and personalize the results of the automated assessment. Furthermore, each complexity factor was complemented with a potential optimisation measure to facilitate drug treatment (e.g. a patient leaflet). Complexity factors, key questions, and optimisation strategies were technically realized as tablet computer-based application, tested, and adapted iteratively until no further technical or content-related errors occurred. RESULTS: In total, 61 complexity factors referring to the dosage form, the dosage scheme, additional instructions, the patient, the product, and the process were considered relevant for inclusion in the tool; 38 of them allowed for automated detection. In total, 52 complexity factors were complemented with at least one key question for preference assessment and at least one optimisation measure. These measures included 29 recommendations for action for the health care provider (e.g. to suggest a dosage aid), 27 training videos, 44 patient leaflets, and 5 algorithms to select and suggest alternative drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Both the set-up of an algorithm and its technical realisation as computer-based app was successful. The electronic tool covers a wide range of different factors that potentially increase the complexity of drug treatment. For the majority of factors, simple key questions could be phrased to include the patients' perspective, and, even more important, for each complexity factor, specific measures to mitigate or reduce complexity could be defined.

[Which factors are associated with the use of potentially inadequate medications (PIM) in the elderly? : Results from the German health interview and examination survey (DEGS1)]. / Welche Faktoren begünstigen die Anwendung potenziell ungeeigneter Medikamente bei älteren Menschen? : Ergebnisse aus der Studie zur Gesundheit Erwachsener in Deutschland (DEGS1).

BACKGROUND: Recent studies demonstrate a relationship between the prescription of potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) for patients 65 years or older and an increased risk for adverse events, in particular hospitalisations. The RKI conducted DEGS1-Survey ("German health interview and examination survey for adults") provides a representative sample of the target population to identify determinants for PIM use. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine characteristics of older persons in Germany, who currently use PIM, and if there are subpopulations among older persons with a particularly high PIM use. METHODS: Within the DEGS1-Survey a total of 175 variables regarding health and social aspects were documented from 1392 community-dwelling persons between 65 and 79 years of age, and medication intake during the last seven days was recorded. PIM drugs were identified according to the PRISCUS list. Associations between PIM use and variables recorded were evaluated by means of multivariate statistical models. RESULTS: Within seven days before the survey PIM drugs were used by 13.0% (95%-CI: 10.7-15.6) of the respondents. The following factors significantly increase the risk for receiving a PIM: number of drugs taken in the last seven days; number of visits to different physician specialists during the last 12 months; sleep disorders; psychiatric condition, and diseases affecting the musculoskeletal system. The majority of PIMs were antidepressants and anxiolytics/sedatives. Elderly women with depression, sleep disorders, and a need for analgesics are particularly affected by increased PIM use. They deserve special attention in this regard.

Evaluation of a program to strengthen general practice care for patients with chronic disease in Germany.

BACKGROUND: A program to strengthen general practice care for patients with chronic disease was offered in Germany. Enrollment was a free individual choice for both patients and physicians. This study aimed to examine the long-term impact of this program. METHODS: Two comparative evaluations were done, at 4 and 5 years (T1 and T2) after start of the program. In each year, patients in the program were compared with patients in usual care. Measures were based on routinely collected data and concerned 11 aspects of primary care and hospital care. Study groups were compared, using regression analysis adjusted for confounders and clustering. RESULTS: Data on 1.187.597 and 1.591.017 eligible patients were available for the analysis for T1 and T2, respectively. Compared to usual care, the program was associated with more visits to the GP per patient (adjusted difference at T2: +1.98), more drugs prescribed per patient (+0.071), lower percentage of drugs that should be avoided (-0.699), and lower yearly medication costs per patient (-85.39 euro). The number of referrals to ambulatory specialists, either with or without referral from GP, was reduced at T2. In hospital care, the program was associated with fewer hospital admissions per patient per year (-0.017) and fewer avoidable hospital admissions of all admissions (-1.165%). Total hospital costs were slightly higher in T1, but lower in T2. Days in hospital and number of readmissions were lower at T2 only. CONCLUSION: The program has increased the role of general practice in healthcare for patients who chose to be included in the program of intensified general practice care.

Prescribing differences in family practice for diabetic patients in Germany according to statutory or private health insurance: the case of DPP-4-inhibitors and GLP-1-agonists.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to analyze prescription decisions for family practice (FP) patients with Diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2) using the case of the incretin mimetics Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DDP-4) inhibitors and Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists dependent on patients' health insurance status (statutory or private) in Germany. This study is important since the scientific debate is still open with regard to DPP-4-inhibitors and GLP-1-agonists, where some critics are raising questions on potential long-term risks for patients. METHODS: Data for this analysis were sourced from the German health services research register CONTENT (CONTinuous morbidity registration Epidemiologic NeTwork), in which FP health services information, generated by family practitioners, is continuously collated, e.g. patients' health insurance status, morbidity and pharmacotherapy. Patients with Diabetes mellitus type 1 (DM1) were excluded from the study. RESULTS: From the family practices collaborating in the CONTENT research network, there were 7298 patients treated with pharmacotherapeutic agents for DM2 between 01.09.2009 and 31.08.2014. 586 (8.03 %) of these patients had private insurance. Prescriptions for the incretin mimetics were 40.6 % higher (9.7 vs. 6.9 %; p < 0.0001) for patients with private insurance compared to patients with statutory health insurance. This finding was confirmed with multivariable analyses. CONCLUSIONS: There was a statistically significant difference found in prescription patterns according to the patient's health insurance status for the incretin mimetics in this sample population of German patients with DM2. Obviously, these differences result from the eligibility for reimbursement according to patients' health insurance status. Whether incretin mimetics pose specific long term risks for particular patients is yet to be determined.

[General practice care for patients with chronic non-cancer pain: A rapid review as part of the RELIEF project]. / Hausärztliche Versorgung von Patient:innen mit chronischen nicht-tumorbedingten Schmerzen: ein Rapid Review im Rahmen des RELIEF-Projekts.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately one fifth of the German population suffers from chronic pain, which is often associated with limitations in coping with everyday life, social isolation and psychological comorbidities such as anxiety and depression. The importance of a treatment approach that considers biological, psychological, and social factors (bio-psycho-social model) as well as non-drug interventions is emphasized in current guidelines, but presents challenges for primary care practices. To support the implementation of evidence-based best practice recommendations, the RELIEF project (Resource-oriented case management to implement recommendations for patients with chronic pain and frequent use of analgesics in general practices) aims to develop a case management program for the primary care of patients with chronic non-tumor pain. METHODS: Prior to intervention development, a rapid review was conducted to identify best practice recommendations for the care of patients with chronic non-tumor pain, barriers and strategies to their implementation, and gaps in care in current guidelines and literature. Selective searches of guidelines, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, bibliographies of relevant publications, and the gray literature focused on assessment and monitoring, education, promotion of self-care, and rational pharmacotherapy. RESULTS: Numerous recommendations on assessment and monitoring were identified, but only a few studies examined their feasibility in primary care practices. Guidelines contained few specific recommendations on content and format of patient education on chronic pain. Recommendations for non-drug self-care measures were mainly related to physical activity, relaxation techniques, behavioral therapy techniques and external applications. Especially for the area of physical activity, numerous barriers but also strategies for a successful implementation could be identified. DISCUSSION: In a potential primary care model for patients with chronic non-tumor pain, pain assessment should aim to identify patients who need support in implementing medication and non-medication interventions in the primary care setting and/or could benefit from specialized care. To implement recommendations for pain education, primary care physicians need educational materials in a variety of formats and levels of detail that ideally could be processed by patients at home and then get addressed in practices using simple key questions. Non-drug measures should be an explicit part of the treatment plan. CONCLUSION: Many of the identified recommendations for the treatment of patients with chronic non-tumor pain can also be considered relevant for the primary care setting. Specific guidelines and concepts for primary care physicians that include setting-specific characteristics at the physician, patient, and system levels would be desirable for a successful implementation of these recommendations.

Evaluating an implementation strategy in cardiovascular prevention to improve prescribing of statins in Germany: an intention to treat analysis.

BACKGROUND: The prescription of statins is an evidence-based treatment to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with elevated cardiovascular risk or with a cardiovascular disorder (CVD). In spite of this, many of these patients do not receive statins. METHODS: We evaluated the impact of a brief educational intervention in cardiovascular prevention in primary care physicians' prescribing behaviour regarding statins beyond their participation in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). For this, prescribing data of all patients > 35 years who were counselled before and after the study period were analysed (each n > 75,000). Outcome measure was prescription of Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors (statins) corresponding to patients' overall risk for CVD. Appropriateness of prescribing was examined according to different risk groups based on the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System (ATC codes). RESULTS: There was no consistent association between group allocation and statin prescription controlling for risk status in each risk group before and after study participation. However, we found a change to more significant drug configurations predicting the prescription of statins in the intervention group, which can be regarded as a small intervention effect. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that an active implementation of a brief evidence-based educational intervention does not lead to prescription modifications in everyday practice. Physician's prescribing behaviour is affected by an established health care system, which is not easy to change. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN71348772.

Optimizing Antibiotic Prescribing for Acute Respiratory Tract Infections in German Primary Care: Results of the Regional Intervention Study CHANGE-3 and the Nested cRCT.

Within primary care, acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs) are the most common reason for prescribing antibiotics. The aim of the CHANGE-3 study was to investigate how antibiotic prescribing for non-complicated ARTIs can be reduced to a reasonable level. The trial was conducted as a prospective study consisting of a regional public awareness intervention in two regions of Germany and a nested cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) of a complex implementation strategy. The study involved 114 primary care practices and comprised an intervention period of six winter months for the nested cRCT and two times six winter months for the regional intervention. The primary outcome was the percentage of antibiotic prescribing for ARTIs between baseline and the two following winter seasons. The regression analysis confirmed a general trend toward the restrained use of antibiotics in German primary care. This trend was found in both groups of the cRCT without significant differences between groups. At the same time, antibiotic prescribing was higher in routine care (with the public campaign only) than in both groups of the cRCT. With regard to secondary outcomes, in the nested cRCT, the prescribing of quinolones was reduced, and the proportion of guideline-recommended antibiotics increased.

Hospital Admission and Discharge: Lessons Learned from a Large Programme in Southwest Germany.

Introduction: In the context of a GP-based care programme, we implemented an admission, discharge and follow-up programme. Description: The VESPEERA programme consists of three sets of components: pre-admission interventions, in-hospital interventions and post-discharge interventions. It was aimed at all patients with a hospital stay participating in the GP-based care programme and was implemented in 7 hospitals and 72 general practices in southwest Germany using a range of strategies. Its' effectiveness was evaluated using readmissions within 90 days after discharge as primary outcome. Questionnaires with staff were used to explore the implementation process. Discussion: A statistically significant effect was not found, but the effect size was similar to other interventions. Intervention fidelity was low and contextual factors affecting the implementation, amongst others, were available resources, external requirements such as legal regulations and networking between care providers. Lessons learned were derived that can aid to inform future political or scientific initiatives. Conclusion: Structured information transfer at hospital admission and discharge makes sense but the added value in the context of a GP-based programme seems modest. Primary care teams should be involved in pre- and post-hospital care.

Tearing down walls: opening the border between hospital and ambulatory care for quality improvement in Germany.

The hospital benchmarking system in Germany was originally introduced to detect unintended consequences of reimbursement based on diagnosis-related groups. The new nationwide SQG programme aims to provide information on quality and outcomes of health care provided in hospital, ambulatory specialist and primary care settings, including the healthcare delivery across different sectors. In 2010 the topics for indicator development were cataract surgery, cervical conization, colectoral cancer and percutaneous coronary interventions or coronary angiography. A systematic stepwise modified RAND/UCLA procedure is applied to develop quality indicators in each of these domains. A general framework for data collection is implemented. Benchmarking results are fed back to providers on a regular basis.

Cross-sectoral Analysis of 1.4 Million AOK-insured Patients with Back Pain in Baden-Württemberg - What Influence does Outpatient Specialist Care Have? / Sektorenübergreifende Rückenschmerz-Versorgungsanalyse von 1,4 Mio. AOK-Versicherten in Baden-Württemberg ­ welchen Einfluss hat die ambulante fachärztliche Versorgung?

BACKGROUND: Back pain is one of the leading causes of disability globally and the most common musculoskeletal pain in Germany. The lifetime prevalence of back pain ranges from 74% to 85%, and the point prevalence ranges from 32% to 49%. One in five individuals with statutory health insurance visits a doctor at least once a year for back pain, and 1 in 20 individuals is on sick leave at least once a year. The question as to what extent can different outpatient care concepts substantially contribute to improving care and avoiding inpatient hospital treatment has repeatedly been the subject of controversial political discussions. This study aimed to present a description of the reality of care in Baden-Württemberg (BW), Germany, based on claims data. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Anonymised routine billing data of AOK Baden-Württemberg were analysed in compliance with data protection regulations. The billing data cover the outpatient and inpatient care sectors. All AOK patients in BW who received at least one ICD10 diagnosis from their physician in the first half of 2015 were considered for the analysis. Patients with at least one diagnosis of back pain were evaluated as patients with back pain, whereby the assignment to the diagnosis group of specific or non-specific back pain was made based on the code. RESULTS: In the first half of 2015, nearly 988 925 patients with back pain were registered in the 6696 primary care clinics in BW, approximately 302 524 patients in 1172 orthopaedic clinics and 17 043 patients in 89 neurosurgical clinics. Primary care clinics reported back pain diagnosis in 34.6%, orthopaedic clinics in 51.9% and neurosurgical clinics in 78.6% of cases. Primary care clinics diagnosed a specific cause in approximately one-third of patients with back pain, orthopaedic clinics in approximately 40% of their patients and neurosurgery clinics in one in two cases. Overall, approximately 1.2% of 1.3 million patients with back pain (January to December 2015 in BW) were hospitalised. Inpatient therapy consisted of surgical therapy and conservative therapy. Nucleotomy, decompression and spondylodesis were the three most common surgical procedures performed. Pain medication and remedy prescriptions decreased pain after spinal surgery. There are significant regional differences in referral and surgery rates. The mean inpatient referral rate was 535 of 100 000 AOK insurants, and the median was 536 of 100 000 AOK insurants. The mean surgery rate among all admitted patients with back pain was 49.9%, and the median was 49.8%. CONCLUSION: The vast majority of patients with back pain are treated as outpatients. Only approximately 1.2% of all patients with back pain were treated as inpatients in 2015. Of these, approximately half underwent surgery. Spinal surgeries led to a decrease in pain medication and remedy prescription postoperatively. The three most frequent surgical procedures were 'decompression', 'excision of disc tissue' and 'spondylodesis'. There were significant regional differences.

[Acute respiratory tract infections and antibiotic prescriptions: What are patients' expectations?] / Akute Atemwegsinfekte und Antibiotika-Verordnungen: Welche Erwartungen haben Patient*innen?

INTRODUCTION: The use of antibiotics in human medicine is partly responsible for the global increase in antibiotic resistance. Significant reductions in antibiotic prescribing were realised through educational campaigns, communication training and prescribing feedback. Based on data from the cluster-randomised CHANGE-3 trial, the present analysis focuses on the question of patient expectations for an antibiotic in acute respiratory infections. METHODS: 106 of 114 General Practitioner (GP) practices in Baden-Württemberg and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania took part in the study. 4736 patients who visited the practices with acute respiratory infections from October 2018 to May 2019 filled out a questionnaire after the doctor's consultation. The analysis was descriptive. RESULTS: 16.7 % of patients with acute respiratory infections reported receiving antibiotics from their GP. 13.3 % of patients had hoped for an antibiotic and 5.5 % stated that they had asked their GP for an antibiotic prescription. The lowest prescription rate for antibiotics was reported by patients who had received a diagnosis of influenza from their GP. With specific diagnoses differentiated from uncomplicated respiratory tract infection, an increase in both the number of antibiotics hoped for and the number of antibiotics prescribed was observed. DISCUSSION: Patients still receive antibiotics more often than they actually hope for. On the part of GPs, prescriptions may still be written because of perceived pressure from patients, but this is not reflected in patient expectations. In addition to dealing openly with patients' expectations, strengthening patients' health literacy, mindful doctor-patient communication and offered opportunities for re-presentation in the case of specific diagnoses could further reduce the perceived pressure on GPs.

HIOPP-6 - a pilot study on the evaluation of an electronic tool to assess and reduce the complexity of drug treatment considering patients' views.

BACKGROUND: A complex drug treatment might pose a barrier to safe and reliable drug administration for patients. Therefore, a novel tool automatically analyzes structured medication data for factors possibly contributing to complexity and subsequently personalizes the results by evaluating the relevance of each identified factor for the patient by means of key questions. Hence, tailor-made optimization measures can be proposed. METHODS: In this controlled, prospective, exploratory trial the tool was evaluated with nine general practitioners (GP) in three study groups: In the two intervention groups the tool was applied in a version with (GI_with) and a version without (GI_without) integrated key questions for the personalization of the analysis, while the control group (GC) did not use any tools (routine care). Four to eight weeks after application of the tool, the benefits of the optimization measures to reduce or mitigate complexity of drug treatment were evaluated from the patient perspective. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients regularly using more than five drugs could be included for analysis. GP suggested 117 optimization measures in GI_with, 83 in GI_without, and 2 in GC. Patients in GI_with were more likely to rate an optimization measure as helpful than patients in GI_without (IRR: 3.5; 95% CI: 1.2-10.3). Thereby, the number of optimization measures recommended by the GP had no significant influence (P = 0.167). CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that an automated analysis considering patient perspectives results in more helpful optimization measures than an automated analysis alone - a result which should be further assessed in confirmatory studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered retrospectively at the German Clinical Trials register under DRKS-ID DRKS00025257 (17/05/2021).