Refine
Document Type
- Article (6)
- Doctoral Thesis (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (8)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (8) (remove)
Keywords
- primary care (8) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (8)
Prescribing practice of pregabalin/gabapentin in pain therapy : an evaluation of German claim data
(2019)
Objectives: To analyse the prevalence and incidence of pregabalin and gabapentin (P/G) prescriptions, typical therapeutic uses of P/G with special attention to pain-related diagnoses and discontinuation rates.
Design: Secondary data analysis.
Setting: Primary and secondary care in Germany.
Participants: Four million patients in the years 2009–2015 (anonymous health insurance data).
Intervention: None.
Primary and secondary outcome measures: P/G prescribing rates, P/G prescribing rates associated with pain therapy, analysis of pain-related diagnoses leading to new P/G prescriptions and the discontinuation rate of P/G.
Results: In 2015, 1.6% of insured persons received P/G prescriptions. Among the patients with pain first treated with P/G, as few as 25.7% were diagnosed with a typical neuropathic pain disorder. The remaining 74.3% had either not received a diagnosis of neuropathic pain or showed a neuropathic component that was pathophysiologically conceivable but did not support the prescription of P/G. High discontinuation rates were observed (85%). Among the patients who had discontinued the drug, 61.1% did not receive follow-up prescriptions within 2 years.
Conclusion: The results show that P/G is widely prescribed in cases of chronic pain irrespective of neuropathic pain diagnoses. The high discontinuation rate indicates a lack of therapeutic benefits and/or the occurrence of adverse effects.
Hintergrund und Fragestellung Medizinische Fehlerberichtssysteme dienen als Instrument zum Erfassen von Daten aus dem Bereich der Patientensicherheit und sollen das Lernen aus den berichteten Fehlern ermöglichen. Erfahrungen hierzu liegen hauptsächlich aus dem Umfeld der Kliniken vor, für den ambulanten bzw. hausärztlichen Bereich gibt es noch wenige Kenntnisse. Ziel dieser Arbeit ist die Erstellung und Erprobung eines praxistauglichen, deutschsprachigen Fehlerberichts- und Lernsystems für hausärztlich tätige Mediziner/innen. Weiterhin soll die Verwendung und Nutzerakzeptanz nach einem Jahr Betrieb untersucht werden. Methoden Zur Festlegung der Eigenschaften des zu erstellenden Systems wurden drei existierende Berichtssysteme analysiert, eine Befragung der Teilnehmer einer Pilotstudie (PCISME) durchgeführt sowie juristische Aspekte untersucht. Das System wurde mit Hilfe etablierter Softwareentwicklungsmethoden erstellt. Nach einem Jahr Laufzeit wurden Daten zur Verwendung des Systems ermittelt und die veröffentlichten Berichte und abgegebenen Benutzerkommentare insbesondere bezüglich Aussagen zum Feedbacksystem und zur Nutzerfreundlichkeit untersucht. Ergebnisse Im Oktober 2004 wurde mit „Jeder Fehler zählt“ das erste Fehlerberichts- und Lernsystem für Hausärzte in Deutschland freigegeben. Es ist ein komplett offenes, freiwilliges, anonymes und externes System. Die Eingabe der Fehlerberichte erfolgt über ein im Internet frei zugängliches Formular. Ausgesuchte Fehlerberichte werden von wissenschaftlichen Mitarbeitern kommentiert und veröffentlicht. Benutzer können zu den Berichten und in einem Diskussionsforum ebenfalls Kommentare eingeben. Weiterhin werden Berichte und Analysen in Fachzeitschriften publiziert. Im ersten Jahr gingen 149 Berichte ein, laut Aussagen von 23 Benutzern ist das Berichten einfach durchzuführen. Es wurden 11 „Fehler des Monats“ veröffentlicht, zu denen insgesamt 123 Kommentare abgegeben wurden. Zu 43 veröffentlichten „Fehler der Woche“ wurden 146 Kommentare abgegeben. Im Diskussionsforum wurden 46 Einträge vorgenommen. Die Beiträge der Benutzer sind zum weit überwiegenden Teil konstruktiv und sachbezogen und enthalten häufig konkrete Tipps und Hinweise zur Vermeidung von Fehlern. In deutschen und österreichischen Fachzeitschriften wurden insgesamt 11 Berichte publiziert. Diskussion Das System führt Eigenschaften der untersuchten Systeme mit eigenen Ansätzen zusammen. Da wegen der Anonymität der Berichtenden keine Möglichkeit zum Nachfragen besteht, ist für eine gute Verwertbarkeit der Berichte eine möglichst hochwertige textuelle Beschreibung der Ereignisse notwendig. Diese war in der überwiegenden Zahl der Berichte gegeben. Aus Sicht der aktiven Nutzer stellt das System grundsätzlich einen wertvollen Beitrag zur Qualitäts- und Fehlerkultur dar. Schlussfolgerung Die regelmäßige Nutzung der Internetseiten, die dort abgegebenen Kommentare und die Veröffentlichungen der Berichte in den Zeitschriften zeigen, dass auch einzelne Berichte das Lernen aus Fehlern ermöglichen können. „Jeder Fehler zählt“ kann als hypothesengenerierendes System mit vielfältigen Ansätzen zur weiteren Forschung aufgefasst werden. Bereits im ersten Jahr des Betriebs konnten wertvolle Erfahrungen gesammelt werden, die in die kontinuierliche Weiterentwicklung des Systems einfließen. Diese fokussiert auf Verbesserungen der Feedbackmethoden sowie auf eine höhere Nutzung des Systems.
Background: The elderly population deals with multimorbidity (three chronic conditions) and increasinged drug use with age. A comprehensive characterisation of the medication – including prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs – of elderly patients in primary care is still insufficient.
Objectives: This study aims to characterise the medication (prescription and OTC) of multimorbid elderly patients in primary care and living at home by identifying drug patterns to evaluate the relationship between drugs and drug groups and reveal associations with recently published multimorbidity clusters of the same cohort.
Methods: MultiCare was a multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study of 3189 multimorbid patients aged 65 to 85 years in primary care in Germany. Patients and general practitioners were interviewed between 2008 and 2009. Drug patterns were identified using exploratory factor analysis. The relations between the drug patterns with the three multimorbidity clusters were analysed with Spearman-Rank-Correlation.
Results: Patients (59.3% female) used in mean 7.7 drugs; in total 24,535 drugs (23.7% OTC) were detected. Five drug patterns for men (drugs for obstructive pulmonary diseases (D-OPD), drugs for coronary heart diseases and hypertension (D-CHD), drugs for osteoporosis (D-Osteo), drugs for heart failure and drugs for pain) and four drug patterns for women (D-Osteo, D-CHD, D-OPD and drugs for diuretics and gout) were detected. Significant associations between multimorbidity clusters and drug patterns were detectable (D-CHD and CMD: male: ρ = 0.376, CI 0.322–0.430; female: ρ = 0.301, CI 0.624–0.340).
Conclusion: The drug patterns demonstrate non-random relations in drug use in multimorbid elderly patients and systematic associations between drug patterns and multimorbidity clusters were found in primary care.
Background: Increasingly, informal caregivers in Belgium care in group for an older patient. This study aimed to decrease the caregiver burden and to increase the well-being of caregivers and patients by supporting the needs of informal care groups of older patients (≥70 years).
Method: Through an online self-management tool, the groups were supported to make informed choices concerning the care for the older patient, taking into account the standards, values, concerns and needs of every caregiver and patient. A pre-post study was performed.
Results: Although patients and caregivers considered the self-management tool as useful and supportive, no clear evidence for decreased caregiver burden was found. There was a positive trend in group characteristics such as the distribution of tasks, communication and prevalence of conflicts. Caregivers also stated that they took more time for themselves, had less feelings of guilt and experienced less barriers to ask help.
Conclusion: Tailor-made support of informal care groups starts with facilitating and guiding a process to achieve consent within the group to optimise the care for the patient and also for the caregivers. With a shared vision and supported decisions, caregivers can enter into conversations with the professional caregiver to coordinate adjusted support regarding the care needs.
Characteristics of critical incident reporting systems in primary care: an international survey
(2022)
Aim: The aim of the study was to support the development of future critical incident reporting systems (CIRS) in primary care by collecting information on existing systems. Our focus was on processes used to report and analyse incidents, as well as strategies used to overcome difficulties.
Methods: Based on literature from throughout the world, we identified existing CIRS in primary care. We developed a questionnaire and sent it to operators of a purposeful sample of 17 CIRS in primary care. We used cross-case analysis to compare the answers and pinpoint important similarities and differences in the CIRS in our sample.
Results: Ten CIRS operators filled out the questionnaire, and 9 systems met the inclusion criteria. The sample of CIRS came from 8 different countries and was rather heterogeneous. The reporting systems invited a broad range of professions to report, with some also including reports by patients. In most cases, reporting was voluntary and conducted via an online reporting form. Reports were analysed locally, centrally, or both. The various CIRS used interesting ideas to deal with barriers. Some, for example, used confidential reporting modes as a compromise between anonymity and the need for follow-up investigations, whereas others used smartphone applications and call centres to speed up the reporting process.
Conclusion: We found multiple CIRS that have operated in primary care for many years, have received a high number of reports and were largely developed in accordance with recommendations found in literature. Although primary care in Germany differs from other countries, these CIRS could serve as an inspiration for CIRS in German primary care.
Introduction: Chronic heart failure (CHF) is a heterogeneous condition requiring complex treatment from diverse healthcare services. An increasingly holistic understanding of healthcare has resulted in contextual factors such as perceived quality of care, as well as patients’ acceptance, preferences and subjective expectations of health services, all gaining in importance. How patients with CHF experience the use of healthcare services has not been studied within the scope of a systematic review in a German healthcare context. The aim of this scoping review is therefore to review systematically the experiences of patients affected by CHF with healthcare services in Germany in the literature and to map the research foci. Further objectives are to identify gaps in evidence, develop further research questions and to inform decision makers concerned with improving healthcare of patients living with CHF.
Methods and analysis: This scoping review will be based on a broad search strategy involving systematic and comprehensive electronic database searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, CINAHL and Cochrane’s Database of Systematic Reviews, grey literature searches, as well as hand searches through reference lists and non-indexed key journals. The methodological procedure will be based on an established six-stage framework for conducting scoping reviews that includes two independent reviewers. Data will be systematically extracted, qualitatively and quantitatively analysed and summarised both narratively and visually. To ensure the research questions and extracted information are meaningful, a patient representative will be involved.
Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval will not be required to conduct this review. Results will be disseminated through a clearly illustrated report that will be part of a wider research project. Furthermore, it is intended that the review’s findings should be made available to relevant stakeholders through conference presentations and publication in peer-reviewed journals (knowledge transfer). Protocol registration in PROSPERO is not applicable for scoping reviews.
Background: Interventional studies on polypharmacy often fail to significantly improve patient-relevant outcomes, or confine themselves to measuring surrogate parameters. Interventions and settings are complex, with many factors affecting results. The AdAM study’s aim is to reduce hospitalization and death by requiring general practitioners (GPs) to use a computerized decision-support system (CDSS). The study will undergo a process evaluation to identify factors for successful implementation and to assess whether the intervention was implemented as intended.
Objective: To evaluate our complex intervention, based on the Medical Research Council’s guideline dimensions.
Research Questions:
We will assess implementation (reach, fidelity, dose, tailoring) by asking: (1) Who took part in the intervention (proportion of GPs using the CDSS, proportion of patients enrolled in them)? Information on GPs’ and patients’ characteristics will also be collected. (2) How many and which medication alerts were dealt with? (3) Was the intervention implemented as intended? (4) On what days did GPs use the intervention tool?
Methods: The process evaluation is part of a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized controlled trial. Characteristics of practices, GPs and patients using the CDSS will be compared with the non-participating population. CDSS log data will be analyzed to evaluate how the number of medication alerts changed between baseline and 2 months later, and to identify the kind of alerts that were dealt with. Comparison of enrolled patients on weekdays versus weekends will shed light on GPs’ use of the CDSS in the absence or presence of patients. Outcomes will be presented using descriptive statistics, and significance tests will be used to identify associations between them. We will conduct subgroup analyses, including time effects to account for software improvements.
Discussion: This study protocol is the basis for conducting analyses of the quantitative process evaluation. By providing insight into how GPs conduct medication reviews, the evaluation will provide context to the trial results and support their interpretation. The evaluation relies on the proper documentation by GPs, potentially limiting its explanatory power.
Background: We conducted a comprehensive medication review at the patients’ home, using data from electronic patient records, and with input from relevant specialists, general practitioners and pharmacists formulated and implemented recommendations to optimize medication use in patients aged 60+ years with polypharmacy. We evaluated the effect of this medication review on quality of life (QoL) and medication use. Methods: Cluster randomized controlled trial (stepped wedge), randomly assigning general practices to one of three consecutive steps. Patients received usual care until the intervention was implemented. Primary outcome was QoL (SF-36 and EQ-5D); secondary outcomes were medication changes, medication adherence and (instrumental) activities of daily living (ADL, iADL) which were measured at baseline, and around 6- and 12-months post intervention. Results: Twenty-four general practices included 360 women and 410 men with an average age of 75 years (SD 7.5). A positive effect on SF-36 mental health (estimated mean was stable in the intervention, but decreased in the control condition with −6.1, p = 0.009,) was found with a reduced number of medications at follow-up compared to the control condition. No significant effects were found on other QoL subscales, ADL, iADL or medication adherence. Conclusion: The medication review prevented decrease of mental health (SF36), with no significant effects on other outcome measures, apart from a reduction in the number of prescribed medications.