Establishing a standing patient advisory board in family practice research: A qualitative evaluation from patients' and researchers' perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: Patient and public involvement is vital for high-quality research. Integrating patients' and providers' perspectives early in research enhances the feasibility and relevance of study results. Within our family practice-based research network ForN, we established a standing patient advisory board (PAB) to include patients with diverse conditions and experiences. In this paper, we aim to describe the establishment and functioning of a standing PAB in family medicine research from patients' and researchers' perspectives. METHODS: After each PAB meeting, patients and researchers were asked to name anonymously positive and challenging moments in a feedback form with open questions. Researchers were also asked to reflect on how they implemented the discussion content in their research projects. The responses from both groups were transferred to MAXQDA 2018 and analyzed separately using thematic analysis. RESULTS: We analyzed 40 feedback forms from patients and 14 feedback forms from researchers. The dominant theme in the patients' feedback was 'exchange': They positively emphasized the 'exciting and open discussions' and the exchange of perspectives with one another and researchers. The clarity of the researchers' presentations and the research topics were appreciated. Researchers also positively highlighted the open atmosphere of the discussions. Presenting their research to the PAB helped most researchers reflect on their research topics from patients' perspectives and implement changes. However, researchers also mentioned several barriers to the implementation of PAB members' feedback. CONCLUSION: The establishment of a standing PAB in family practice research is feasible and productive both from patients' and researchers' perspectives. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study reports the evaluation of the establishment of a standing PAB in family practice research. Board members are involved in the design of studies, the co-production of interventions and information material, and the interpretation of data.

[SaxoForN-a transregional primary care research network in Dresden and Frankfurt am Main : Design of a practice-based research infrastructure]. / SaxoForN ­ Transregionales allgemeinmedizinisches Forschungspraxennetz Dresden und Frankfurt am Main : Konzept einer innovativen Forschungspraxeninfrastruktur.

Establishing primary care research networks (PCRNs) makes it easier to conduct clinical trials and health services research in a general-practice setting. Since February 2020, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) has sponsored the development of six PCRNs and a coordination unit throughout Germany, with the aim of setting up a sustainable outpatient research infrastructure to raise the quantity and quality of primary care.The present article describes the design of a PCRN in Dresden and Frankfurt am Main - SaxoForN - and explains its structure and how it operates. The network is a transregional alliance between the two regional PCRNs named "SaxoN" (Dresden/Saxony) and "ForN" (Frankfurt am Main/Hesse), both of which run transregional and local research projects. For this purpose, joint standards and harmonized structures, for example with respect to the data infrastructure, qualifications, participation, and accreditation, were agreed upon and implemented at both sites.A critical success factor will be whether and to what extent the standards and structures, as well as resource planning, can be designed sustainably enough to permit the PCRNs to carry out high-quality research over the long term. To achieve this, the PCRNs will have to attract new practices and build up lasting relationships with them, qualify the research practices in order to standardize processes as far as possible, and regularly document their basic information and healthcare data.

Care practices of specialized outpatient pediatric palliative care teams in collaboration with parents: Results of participatory observations.

BACKGROUND: Collaboration between parents and professional care providers is an essential part of pediatric palliative care. As children are embedded in family systems and many of the patients are not able to communicate verbally, their parents are the primary interaction partners for palliative care providers. International standards for pediatric palliative care in Europe state that parents should be supported, acknowledged as the primary carers and involved as partners in all care and decisions. AIM: To find out through which care practices pediatric palliative care teams shape collaboration with parents in everyday care. DESIGN: Ethnographic method of participatory observations. Field notes were analyzed using thematic analysis. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Researchers accompanied three pediatric palliative care teams on home visits to eight different families caring for a child with life-limiting conditions. RESULTS: Care practices of palliative care teams were characterized by familiarity, a resource-oriented attitude, empowerment of parents, shared decision-making and support for parents. Palliative care teams not only provided palliative medical treatment for the children, but also developed a trusting care partnership with parents. The teams employed a sensitive and multifaceted communication style in their collaboration with parents. CONCLUSIONS: Care practices in pediatric palliative care require time, communication skills, and a high level of psychosocial competence, to develop a trusting, collaborative relationship with parents. This should be taken into consideration when establishing pediatric palliative care structures, preparing guidelines, training staff, and deciding upon appropriate remuneration.

General practitioners' communication on complementary and integrative medicine for cancer patients: Findings from an analysis of consultations with standardised patients.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to explore whether general practitioners (GPs) communicate with cancer patients on complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) in a patient-centred and case-specific manner. METHODS: We designed two cases of standardised breast cancer patients and allocated 29 GPs to hold a consultation either with Case 1 or Case 2. Case 1 presented with fears of possible physical side effects of hormone treatment. Case 2 feared a loss in social functioning because of nausea and emesis as possible side effects of chemotherapy. Consultations were audiotaped and analysed using the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS). We analysed whether recommended CIM treatments and GPs' focus on psychosocial or medical and therapy-related content differed according to whether they were counselling Case 1 or Case 2. RESULTS: In consultations with Case 1, GPs rather focused on medical and therapy-related content and most often recommended mistletoe, diets and sports. In contrast, GPs focused on psychosocial content and they most often recommended methods of self-care when counselling Case 2. CONCLUSION: The GPs in our sample reacted case-specifically to the patients' interest in CIM. Such responsive and patient-centred communication is a valuable resource but is often time-consuming. Adequate training and reimbursement should therefore be considered for GPs.

Complementary and Integrative Medicine in Pediatric Oncology - Development and Evaluation of a Blended Learning Program.

BACKGROUND: A blended learning program to promote the consultation expertise of pediatric oncologists (POs) on complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) was developed and completed by POs as part of a training program. A previous study indicated that POs in Germany were in need of information and training on CIM, and that there were no medical training offers on the subject in Germany. METHODS: Evaluation of e-learning (questionnaires) and practically oriented one-day, face-to-face workshops (questionnaires, simulation patients), the workshops were evaluated with regard to changes in quality of physician-patient interaction and with regard of the participants' feedback. RESULTS: 32 POs signed up for the program and completed the e-learning. 22 POs participated in one of the workshops. POs agreed that they had received professionally relevant content during the e-learning. The questionnaires on physician-patient interaction showed neither clear positive nor negative changes concerning the quality of interaction. The feedback from the participants on the workshop was very positive. CONCLUSION: Following the end of the blended learning program the e-learning was made available again for interested POs. 34 further applications were received for participation in this part of the training program. With around 300 POs in Germany, this shows a high demand for further training offers of this kind as well as a need for further development.

State-wide implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in specialized outpatient palliative care teams (ELSAH): A mixed-methods evaluation and implications for their sustainable use.

BACKGROUND: Such patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-centered outcome measures as the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS), Phase of Illness, and IPOS Views on Care (IPOS VoC), facilitate patient-centered care and help improve quality. To ensure sustainability, implementation and usage should be adapted according to setting. When settings involve several distinct teams that differ in terms of views and working practices, it is more difficult to integrate outcome measures into daily care. The ELSAH study aimed to learn how health professionals working in specialized outpatient palliative care (SOPC) viewed the use of these outcome measures in daily care, and what they express is needed for successful sustainable, state-wide application. METHODS: We used a parallel mixed-methods design involving three focus groups (n = 14) and an online-survey based on normalization process theory (n = 76). Most participants were nurses and physicians from 19 SOPC-teams in Hesse, Germany. We used a triangulation protocol including convergence coding matrices to triangulate findings. RESULTS: The majority of health professionals were able to integrate the outcome measures into their working lives and said that it had become a normal part of their day-to-day work. To ensure their sustainable integration into daily care, the motivation and concerns of health professionals should be taken into consideration. Health professionals must clearly recognize how the measures help improve daily care and quality evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: To implement the outcome measures in a number of teams, it will be necessary to take individual team characteristics into account, because they influence motivation and concerncs. Further, it will be necessary to offer opportunities for them to engage in peer support and share information with other teams. The sustainable use of outcome measures in SOPC will require continuous support within each team as well as across teams. When several distinct teams are working in the same setting, a cross-team coordination unit can help to coordinate their work efficiently. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS-ID: DRKS00012421; www.germanctr.de/DRKS00012421.

Integrating patient- and caregiver-reported outcome measures into the daily care routines of specialised outpatient palliative care: a qualitative study (ELSAH) on feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness.

BACKGROUND: The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and caregiver-reported outcome measures can raise the patient centeredness of treatment and improve the quality of palliative care. Nevertheless, the everyday implementation of self-report in patients and caregivers is complex, and should be adapted for use in specific settings. We aimed to implement a set of outcome measures that included patient and caregiver self- and proxy-reported outcome measures in specialised outpatient palliative care (SOPC). In this study, we explore how the Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale (IPOS), IPOS Views on Care (IPOS VoC) and the Short-form Zarit Caregiver Burden Interview (ZBI-7) can be feasibly, acceptably and appropriately implemented in the daily care routines of SOPC. METHODS: Five SOPC teams were trained, and used the outcome measures in daily practice. Team members were mainly nurses and physicians. To investigate their feedback, we used a multi-method qualitative design consisting of focus groups with SOPC-team members (n = 14), field notes of meetings and conversations with the SOPC teams. In an iterative process, we analysed the findings using qualitative content analysis and refined use of the outcome measures. RESULTS: We found that integrating patient and caregiver outcome measures into daily care routines in SOPC is feasible. To improve feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness, the resulting burden on patients and relatives should be kept to a minimum, the usefulness of the measures must be understood, they should be used considerately, and administration must be manageable. We removed ZBI-7 from the set of measures as a result of feedback on its content and wording. CONCLUSIONS: SOPC-team members have reservations about the implementation of PROM in SOPC, but with appropriate adjustments, its application in daily care is feasible, accepted and perceived as appropriate. Previous to use, SOPC-team members should be trained in how to apply the measures, in the design of manageable processes that include integration into electronic documentation systems, and in ongoing evaluation and support. They should also be taught how useful the measures can be. TRIAL REGISTRATION: May 19th, 2017, German Clinical Trials Register DRKS-ID: DRKS00012421 .

[Specialized outpatient palliative care for children, adolescents, and their families-the special needs of the target group. Results of the ELSAH study]. / Spezialisierte ambulante Palliativversorgung für Kinder, Jugendliche und ihre Familien ­ die besonderen Belange der Zielgruppe. Ergebnisse der ELSAH-Studie.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Children and adolescents with life-limiting conditions and complex symptoms are eligible for specialized outpatient palliative care (SOPC). The SOPC guideline in Germany solely states: "The special needs of children and adolescents shall be considered." This study aims to identify these special needs and to develop recommendations for a revision of the SOPC guideline. METHODS: We used a sequential mixed-methods design including surveys, qualitative interviews, participant observations, and focus group discussions with relatives, patients, and team members of the SOPC in Hesse, Germany. Furthermore, we analyzed documentation data of the Hessian SOPC teams. RESULTS: Children and adolescents in SOPC suffer from complex and often rare diseases. They need elaborate palliative care delivered by a team with pediatric expertise. SOPC must include the whole family and coordinate healthcare providers that are stretched regionally. Furthermore, patients and relatives need elaborate psychosocial care. SOPC for children and adolescents is less well-known than SOPC for adults, and access for families is often difficult. There is a healthcare gap for children and adolescents with life-limiting diseases who need palliative care at home but not of the intensive kind provided by SOPC. CONCLUSIONS: SOPC for children, adolescents, and adults who have been diseased since their childhood and adolescence must be delivered within an independent structure, including a reimbursement scheme that takes the special care efforts for this patient group into consideration.

How can we ensure the success of specialised palliative home-care? A qualitative study (ELSAH) identifying key issues from the perspective of patients, relatives and health professionals.

BACKGROUND: Specialised palliative home-care supports patients with life-limiting diseases in their familiar surroundings. The number of palliative care teams and patients being cared for is increasing worldwide. To assess and improve quality, it is needed to understand, how specialised palliative home-care can be provided successfully. For this purpose we examined the views of all involved stakeholders. AIM: To identify the issues that patients, their relatives and involved health professionals view as important in ensuring the success of specialised palliative home-care. DESIGN: We used a qualitative design based on participant observations, interviews and focus groups following the principles of a Grounded Theory approach. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: All specialised palliative home-care teams (n = 22) caring for adults in Hesse, Germany, participated. We conducted participant observations (n = 5), and interviewed patients (n = 14), relatives (n = 14) and health professionals working in or collaborating with specialised palliative home-care (n = 30). We also conducted focus groups (n = 4) with health professionals including a member check. RESULTS: Successful specialised palliative home-care needs to treat complex symptoms, and provide comprehensive care including organisation of care, involving relatives and addressing issues of death and dying. Sense of security for patients and relatives is key to enable care at home. Care delivery preferences include a focus on the quality of relationships, respect for individuality and the facilitation of self-determination. CONCLUSIONS: Consideration of the identified key issues can help to ensure successful specialised palliative home-care. Knowledge of these should also be considered when researching and assessing quality of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS-ID: DRKS00012421; http://www.germanctr.de.

Acceptance of Telerheumatology by Rheumatologists and General Practitioners in Germany: Nationwide Cross-sectional Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: The worldwide burden of musculoskeletal diseases is increasing. The number of newly registered rheumatologists has stagnated. Primary care, which takes up a key role in early detection of rheumatic disease, is working at full capacity. COVID-19 and its containment impede rheumatological treatment. Telemedicine in rheumatology (telerheumatology) could support rheumatologists and general practitioners. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to investigate acceptance and preferences related to the use of telerheumatology care among German rheumatologists and general practitioners. METHODS: A nationwide, cross-sectional, self-completed, paper-based survey on telerheumatology care was conducted among outpatient rheumatologists and general practitioners during the pre-COVID-19 period. RESULTS: A total of 73.3% (349/476) of survey participants rated their knowledge of telemedicine as unsatisfactory, poor, or very poor. The majority of survey participants (358/480, 74.6%) answered that they do not currently use telemedicine, although 62.3% (291/467) would like to. Barriers to the implementation of telemedicine include the purchase of technology equipment (182/292, 62.3%), administration (181/292, 62.0%), and poor reimbursement (156/292, 53.4%). A total of 69.6% (117/168) of the surveyed physicians reckoned that telemedicine could be used in rheumatology. Surveyed physicians would prefer to use telemedicine to communicate directly with other physicians (370/455, 81.3%) than to communicate with patients (213/455, 46.8%). Among treatment phases, 64.4% (291/452) of participants would choose to use telemedicine during follow-up. Half of the participants would choose telecounseling as a specific approach to improve rheumatology care (91/170, 53.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Before COVID-19 appeared, our results indicated generally low use but high acceptance of the implementation of telerheumatology among physicians. Participants indicated that the lack of a structural framework was a barrier to the effective implementation of telerheumatology. Training courses should be introduced to address the limited knowledge on the part of physicians in the use of telemedicine. More research into telerheumatology is required. This includes large-scale randomized controlled trials, economic analyses, and the exploration of user preferences.

(Ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin (human isophane insulin) for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Evidence that antihyperglycaemic therapy is beneficial for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus is conflicting. While the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) found tighter glycaemic control to be positive, other studies, such as the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial, found the effects of an intensive therapy to lower blood glucose to near normal levels to be more harmful than beneficial. Study results also showed different effects for different antihyperglycaemic drugs, regardless of the achieved blood glucose levels. In consequence, firm conclusions on the effect of interventions on patient-relevant outcomes cannot be drawn from the effect of these interventions on blood glucose concentration alone. In theory, the use of newer insulin analogues may result in fewer macrovascular and microvascular events. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of long-term treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues (insulin glargine U100 and U300, insulin detemir and insulin degludec) with NPH (neutral protamine Hagedorn) insulin (human isophane insulin) in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. SEARCH METHODS: For this Cochrane Review update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search was 5 November 2019, except Embase which was last searched 26 January 2017. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues to NPH in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, extracted data and evaluated the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Trials were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 24 RCTs. Of these, 16 trials compared insulin glargine to NPH insulin and eight trials compared insulin detemir to NPH insulin. In these trials, 3419 people with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomised to insulin glargine and 1321 people to insulin detemir. The duration of the included trials ranged from 24 weeks to five years. For studies, comparing insulin glargine to NPH insulin, target values ranged from 4.0 mmol/L to 7.8 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 140 mg/dL) for fasting blood glucose (FBG), from 4.4 mmol/L to 6.6 mmol/L (80 mg/dL to 120 mg/dL) for nocturnal blood glucose and less than 10 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) for postprandial blood glucose, when applicable. Blood glucose and glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) target values for studies comparing insulin detemir to NPH insulin ranged from 4.0 mmol/L to 7.0 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 126 mg/dL) for FBG, less than 6.7 mmol/L (120 mg/dL) to less than 10 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) for postprandial blood glucose, 4.0 mmol/L to 7.0 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 126 mg/dL) for nocturnal blood glucose and 5.8% to less than 6.4% HbA1c, when applicable. All trials had an unclear or high risk of bias for several risk of bias domains. Overall, insulin glargine and insulin detemir resulted in fewer participants experiencing hypoglycaemia when compared with NPH insulin. Changes in HbA1c were comparable for long-acting insulin analogues and NPH insulin. Insulin glargine compared to NPH insulin had a risk ratio (RR) for severe hypoglycaemia of 0.68 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.01; P = 0.06; absolute risk reduction (ARR) -1.2%, 95% CI -2.0 to 0; 14 trials, 6164 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The RR for serious hypoglycaemia was 0.75 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.09; P = 0.13; ARR -0.7%, 95% CI -1.3 to 0.2; 10 trials, 4685 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment with insulin glargine reduced the incidence of confirmed hypoglycaemia and confirmed nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Treatment with insulin detemir compared to NPH insulin found an RR for severe hypoglycaemia of 0.45 (95% CI 0.17 to 1.20; P = 0.11; ARR -0.9%, 95% CI -1.4 to 0.4; 5 trials, 1804 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The Peto odds ratio for serious hypoglycaemia was 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.61; P = 0.007; ARR -0.9%, 95% CI -1.1 to -0.4; 5 trials, 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment with detemir also reduced the incidence of confirmed hypoglycaemia and confirmed nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Information on patient-relevant outcomes such as death from any cause, diabetes-related complications, health-related quality of life and socioeconomic effects was insufficient or lacking in almost all included trials. For those outcomes for which some data were available, there were no meaningful differences between treatment with glargine or detemir and treatment with NPH. There was no clear difference between insulin-analogues and NPH insulin in terms of weight gain. The incidence of adverse events was comparable for people treated with glargine or detemir, and people treated with NPH. We found no trials comparing ultra-long-acting insulin glargine U300 or insulin degludec with NPH insulin. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While the effects on HbA1c were comparable, treatment with insulin glargine and insulin detemir resulted in fewer participants experiencing hypoglycaemia when compared with NPH insulin. Treatment with insulin detemir also reduced the incidence of serious hypoglycaemia. However, serious hypoglycaemic events were rare and the absolute risk reducing effect was low. Approximately one in 100 people treated with insulin detemir instead of NPH insulin benefited. In the studies, low blood glucose and HbA1c targets, corresponding to near normal or even non-diabetic blood glucose levels, were set. Therefore, results from the studies are only applicable to people in whom such low blood glucose concentrations are targeted. However, current guidelines recommend less-intensive blood glucose lowering for most people with type 2 diabetes in daily practice (e.g. people with cardiovascular diseases, a long history of type 2 diabetes, who are susceptible to hypoglycaemia or older people). Additionally, low-certainty evidence and trial designs that did not conform with current clinical practice meant it remains unclear if the same effects will be observed in daily clinical practice. Most trials did not report patient-relevant outcomes.

[Living with Localized Prostate Cancer - Decision-Making and Coping with the Illness]. / Leben mit einem lokal begrenzten Prostatakarzinom ­ Entscheidungsfindung und Krankheitsverarbeitung.

BACKGROUND: Men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer must make a choice between treatment strategies that differ considerably in their side effects and have different long-term requirements for coping with the disease. The aim of this study was to describe how men perceive their treatment decision retrospectively and which coping strategies they use. MATERIAL & METHODS: Fifteen men (age mean=67.13±9.38 years) diagnosed with localized prostate cancer participated in three focus groups, grouped according to the treatment strategies radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy, and active surveillance. An interview guide structured the focus group discussions. In analogy to the structured interview, the material was deductively sorted in a first step; in a second step, sub-categories were developed inductively from the material. RESULTS: The content analysis revealed four particularly relevant topics: (1) The communication of the diagnosis and the associated reactions. (2) The decision-making process and the perceived time pressure. (3) The coping strategies, which showed a broad spectrum ranging from distraction and information search to lifestyle changes. (4) The perception of the disease over time. In particular men under active surveillance highlighted the importance of deceleration in their decision making and the role of lifestyle changes. DISCUSSION: The time of the diagnosis is still very much present even a long time after the diagnosis has been communicated. It is possible that a decrease in time pressure and deceleration would lead to more men deciding in favor of an observational strategy. Lifestyle changes could especially help men who choose active surveillance to overcome the feeling of "doing nothing" and gain a sense of control. CONCLUSION: In view of the variety of possible treatment strategies, an ethic of action is required that meets the need for an individual and preference-sensitive decision.

Oncologists' views on the importance of general practitioners for cancer patients: a qualitative interview study from Germany.

Background: Integrated cancer care requires cooperation between specialists and general practitioners (GPs). Mutual understanding of each other's tasks and responsibilities is essential if cooperation is to be successful. While GPs' opinions about oncologists have been addressed in previous studies, less is known about oncologists' views on the role of GPs' in cancer care, especially with regard to GPs' patient-centred, communication-based tasks. Objective: To assess oncologists' views on the importance of GPs for cancer patients. Methods: We conducted 15 qualitative guideline-based telephone interviews with oncologists using open-ended questions and analysed these interviews using thematic analysis. Results: Oncologists situated GPs as persons of trust for patients in a rather amicable sphere of caring in contrast to themselves who were situated in a rather biomedical sphere of evidence-based treatment decisions. Oncologists' appraisal of an overlapping of these spheres varied: While most stressed opportunities for patients (and themselves), others also mentioned risks. Conclusion: Our analysis found that oncologists clearly distinguish between their own sphere of evidence-based treatment decision-making and GPs' sphere of psychosocial caring. The question remains how these roles get interconnected in real life situations in order to meet patients' needs adequately. So far it seems that it is often the patient who is travelling between both spheres and needs to initiate interconnection to get comprehensive cancer care.

Informational continuity of medication management in transitions of care: Qualitative interviews with stakeholders from the HYPERION-TransCare study.

BACKGROUND: The transition of patients between inpatient and outpatient care can lead to adverse events and medication-related problems due to medication and communication errors, such as medication discontinuation, the frequency of (re-)hospitalizations, and increased morbidity and mortality. Older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy are particularly at high risk during transitions of care. Previous research highlighted the need for interventions to improve transitions of care in order to support information continuity, coordination, and communication. The HYPERION-TransCare project aims to improve the continuity of medication management for older patients during transitions of care. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Using a qualitative design, 32 expert interviews were conducted to explore the perspectives of key stakeholders, which included healthcare professionals, patients and one informal caregiver, on transitions of care. Interviews were conducted between October 2020 and January 2021, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using content analysis. We narratively summarized four main topics (stakeholders' tasks, challenges, ideas for solutions and best practice examples, and patient-related factors) and mapped them in a patient journey map. Lacking or incomplete information on patients' medication and health conditions, inappropriate communication and collaboration between healthcare providers within and across settings, and insufficient digital support limit the continuity of medication management. CONCLUSIONS: The study confirms that medication management during transitions of care is a complex process that can be compromised by a variety of factors. Legal requirements and standardized processes are urgently needed to ensure adequate exchange of information and organization of medication management before, during and after hospital admissions. Despite the numerous barriers identified, the findings indicate that involved healthcare professionals from both the inpatient and outpatient care settings have a common understanding.

Implementation and evaluation of a complex intervention to improve information availability at the interface between inpatient and outpatient care in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy (HYPERION-TransCare) - study protocol for a pilot and feasibility cluster-randomized controlled trial in general practice in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Despite attempts to improve the cross-sectoral flow of information, difficulties remain in routine healthcare. The resulting negative impact on continuity of care is often associated with poor health outcomes, especially in older patients. Our intervention aims to increase information availability with respect to medications and health conditions at the interface between inpatient and outpatient care and to contribute towards improving the quality of care in older patients. This pilot study focuses on feasibility and implementability. METHODS: The idea of the complex intervention has been developed in a previous study. This intervention will be tested in a prospective, multicenter, cluster-randomized (via web tool), controlled pilot trial with two parallel study arms (intervention and control group). The pilot study will be conducted in 20 general practices in Hesse and Saxony (Germany) and include 200 patients (≥ 65 years of age with multimorbidity and polypharmacy) recruited by the practices. Practice staff and patients will be blinded. We will use qualitative and quantitative methods to assess the feasibility and implementability of the intervention and the study design in a process evaluation covering topics ranging from expectations to experiences. In addition, the feasibility of proposed outcome parameters for the future definitive trial will be explored. The composite endpoint will include health-related patient outcomes (hospitalization, falls, and mortality using, e.g., the FIMA questionnaire), and we will assess information on medications (SIMS questionnaire), symptoms and side effects of the medication (pro-CTCAE questionnaire), and health literacy (HLQ questionnaire). Data will be collected at study begin (baseline) and after 6 months. Furthermore, the study will include surveys and interviews with patients, general practitioners, and healthcare assistants. DISCUSSION: The intervention was developed using a participatory approach involving stakeholders and patients. It aims to empower general practice teams as they provide patient-centered care and play a key role in the coordination and continuity of care. We aim to encourage patients to adopt an active role in their health care. Overall, we want to increase the availability of health-related information for patients and healthcare providers. The results of the pilot study will be used in the design and implementation of the future definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered in DRKS-German Clinical Trials Register: registration number DRKS00027649 (date: 19 January 2022). Date and version identifier 10.07.2023; Version 1.3.

Preventive and health-promoting activities in general practices in Germany: A scoping review.

General practices are rooted in the local community and considered to be particularly well-positioned for engaging in preventive and health-promoting activities. The overall aim of the scoping review is to identify priorities and gaps in research published in the past 20 years on preventive and health-promoting activities provided by general practitioners or their teams in general practices in Germany. MEDLINE and Embase databases were systematically searched in November 2020. Papers were selected in dual-review mode and extracted in single-review mode. Data analysis was finished by May 2021. In total, 530 papers were included in the synthesis. Little research has been carried out into collaboration opportunities both within the general practice team and in communities as a whole, with specialists (18%), hospitals (9%), and health insurance companies (6%) being the most frequent cooperation partners of GPs. 15%-20% of papers each dealt with 'early detection', 'information provision' and 'cardiovascular prevention'. Secondary (53%) and tertiary prevention (43%) was more often the subject of research than primary (39%) and quaternary prevention (15%). Healthy subjects (26%) were less often studied than people with pre-existing conditions (42%) and risk factors (48%). Little information was available on preventive activities in terms of gender, young people, migration background, housing conditions or educational background. Personal counselling (15%) was the most frequently described approach to health promotion in general practices, along with printed information materials (10%). This scoping review provides information on which to base targeted interventions and future research that can contribute towards transforming general practices into promoters of health within the community.

[Patient and Public Involvement in Family Medicine Research]. / Aktive Patient*innen- und Bürger*innen-Beteiligung in der allgemeinmedizinischen Forschung: Methodische Ansätze und Konzepte in den Netzen der Initiative Deutscher Forschungspraxennetze ­ DESAM-ForNet.

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) has gained importance in Germany and is also increasingly implemented in research in family medicine. Internationally, diverse frameworks give recommendations on how to successfully design and implement PPI in specific contexts. However, it is crucial to share experiences on PPI in specific settings such as family medicine in order to learn from each other. Thus, this article provides an overview of PPI concepts in the practice-based research networks (PBRNs) of the Initiative of German Practice-Based Research Networks - DESAM-ForNet. In the PBRNs patients and the public are involved in the research process by repeated group meetings in "public forums" (BayFoNet), "round tables" (FoPraNet-BW) or "patient advisory boards" (HAFO.NRW, RESPoNsE, SaxoForN) with a special focus on the planning and dissemination phase of projects. The most successful recruitment strategies so far have encompassed individual patient contacts of family physicians, postings/posters, local self-help organizations and standardized patient programs. Evaluation of PPI is currently being designed in most PBRNS. Overall, the PBRN-specific PPI concepts represent diverse possibilities to create long-term collaborative partnerships with patients and the public. These exemplary concepts are meant to encourage the further development and implementation of adapted PPI-concepts in family medicine research.

[Similarities and differences in specialized outpatient palliative care for adults, children and adolescents: results from focus group discussions with health care professionals]. / Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede in der spezialisierten ambulanten Palliativversorgung von Erwachsenen sowie Kindern und Jugendlichen: Ergebnisse aus Fokusgruppendiskussionen mit Leistungserbringer*innen.

BACKGROUND: In Germany, people with life-limiting conditions and complex symptoms are eligible for specialized outpatient palliative care (SOPC). Requirements, delivery and goals of SOPC have been laid down by the Federal Joint Committee in a nationwide guideline. The guideline emphasizes the need to consider the special needs of children and adolescents with life-limiting conditions. A specification of these needs has so far been missing. The focus group discussion presented here aimed at investigating similarities and differences between the specialized outpatient palliative care of adults (SOPC for adults) on the one hand, and children and adolescents (SOPPC) on the other hand, from the perspective of health care professionals in order to further define specifics of SOPPC. METHOD: In three focus group discussions a total of 11 nursing and 8 medical professionals from SOPC for adults and SOPPC engaged in face-to-face discussions on the similarities and differences of both care forms. Discussions were designed openly and stimulated with three guiding questions only. Focus group discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed by thematic analysis supported by the software MAXQDA. RESULTS: Within the following six themes, similarities as well as key differences between SOPC and SOPPC were identified: the participants discussed diseases, coverage area and locations, therapy goals, the psychosocial care situation, the role of relatives and end-of-life care. From the participants' perspective different underlying diseases constitute a main difference that causes further differences in the expertise required. Furthermore, SOPC for adults and SOPPC differ in the dimension of areas covered by one team, the number of patients per team and the reasons for SOPC visits. Differences in terminal care and the mourning process within the team became evident. Some similarities existed regarding goal-setting, psychosocial care and the role of relatives, but concrete patterns and the importance of these aspects differed because a particularly complex and emotional communication is required when a child is dying. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of health care professionals, SOPC for adults and SOPPC differ with regard to underlying diseases as well as care patterns such as collaboration with relatives and their need for psychosocial support. Therefore, the care for children, adolescents and young adults with life-limiting conditions and pediatric diseases all over Germany should be delivered within the frame of an independent care structure by teams whose members possess specific pediatric expertise.

Digital participatory workshops with patients and health professionals to develop an intervention for the management of polypharmacy: results from a mixed-methods evaluation and methodological conclusions.

BACKGROUND: In the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous researchers postponed their patient and public involvement (PPI) activities. This was mainly due to assumptions on patients' willingness and skills to participate digitally. In fact, digital PPI workshops differ from in-person meetings as some forms of non-verbal cues and body language may be missing and technical barriers may exist. Within our project HYPERION-TransCare we adapted our PPI workshop series for intervention development to a digital format and assessed whether these digital workshops were feasible for patients, health care professionals and researchers. METHODS: We used a digital meeting tool that included communication via audio, video and chat. Discussions were documented simultaneously on a digital white board. Technical support was provided via phone and chat during the workshops and with a technical introduction workshop in advance. The workshop evaluation encompassed observation protocols, participants' feedback via chat after each workshop on their chance to speak and the usability of the digital tools, and telephone interviews on patients' and health professionals' experiences after the end of the workshop series. RESULTS: Observation protocols showed an active role of moderators in verbally encouraging every participant to get involved. Technical challenges occurred, but were in most cases immediately addressed and solved. Participants median rating of their chance to speak and the usability of the digital tool was "very good". In the evaluation interviews participants reported a change of perspective and mutual understanding as a main benefit from the PPI workshops and described the atmosphere as inclusive and on equal footing. Benefits of the digital format such as overcoming geographical distance, saving time and combining workshop participation with professional or childcare obligations were reported. Technical support was stressed as a pre-condition for getting actively involved in digital PPI. CONCLUSIONS: Digital formats using different didactic and documentation techniques, accompanied by technical support, can foster active patient and public involvement. The advantages of digital PPI formats such as geographical flexibility and saving time for participants as well as the opportunity to prepare and hold workshops in geographically stretched research teams persists beyond the pandemic and may in some cases outweigh the advantages of in-person communication.

Digital patient and public involvement (PPI) activities differ from in-person meetings. For example, some forms of non-verbal cues and body language are limited and technical barriers may exist. Therefore, some research teams were hesitant to switch to a digital PPI format during the COVID-19 pandemic and postponed their PPI activities.In this paper, we aim to describe, how we adapted a PPI workshop series to a digital format, how patients and health care professionals experienced these digital workshops, and which conclusions we have drawn for future digital PPI activities. The workshop evaluation encompassed workshop observation protocols, participants' feedback via chat on their chance to speak and the feasibility of the digital tools, and telephone interviews on participants' experiences.The study results showed that moderators had an active role in verbally encouraging every participant to get involved. Technical challenges occurred, but were in most cases immediately addressed and solved. Most participants rated their chance to speak and the feasibility of the digital format as "very good". They described the atmosphere as inclusive and on equal footing without hierarchy between different stakeholder groups. Participants reported benefits of the digital format such as overcoming geographical distance, saving time and combining workshop participation with professional or childcare obligations. They stressed technical support as a condition for getting actively involved in digital PPI.We conclude that some advantages of digital PPI may persist beyond the pandemic. Therefore, we encourage research teams to discuss the question of digital or in-person PPI with the involved patients and health professionals and decide on a case-by-case basis.

Development of an intervention to improve informational continuity of care in older patients with polypharmacy at the interface between general practice and hospital care: protocol for a participatory qualitative study in Germany.

INTRODUCTION: Older patients with multimorbidity, polypharmacy and related complex care needs represent a growing proportion of the population and a challenge for healthcare systems. Particularly in transitional care (hospital admission and hospital discharge), medical errors, inappropriate treatment, patient concerns and lack of confidence in healthcare are major problems that may arise from a lack of information continuity. The aim of this study is to develop an intervention to improve informational continuity of care at the interface between general practice and hospital care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A qualitative approach will be used to develop our participatory intervention. Overall, 32 semistructured interviews with relevant stakeholders will be conducted and analysed. The stakeholders will include healthcare professionals from the outpatient setting (general practitioners, healthcare assistants, ambulatory care nurses) and the inpatient setting (clinical doctors, nurses, pharmacists, clinical information scientists) as well as patients and informal caregivers. At a series of workshops based on the results of the stakeholder analyses, we aim to develop a participatory intervention that will then be implemented in a subsequent pilot study. The same stakeholder groups will be invited for participation in the workshops. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this study was waived by the Ethics Committee of Goethe University Frankfurt because of the nature of the proposed study. Written informed consent will be obtained from all study participants prior to participation. Results will be tested in a pilot study and disseminated at (inter)national conferences and via publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTATION NUMBER: Clinical Trials Register: registration number DRKS00027649.