Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (32)
- Conference Proceeding (2)
Keywords
- Patients (4)
- General practice (3)
- Oral anticoagulation (3)
- Primary care (3)
- Allgemeinmedizin (2)
- Case management (2)
- Multimorbidity (2)
- Multiple chronic conditions (2)
- Polypharmacy (2)
- Quality of life (2)
Institute
- Der Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) als Zielgröße für komplexe Interventionen: erste Erfahrungen aus der PRIMUM-Pilotstudie (BMBF-Förderkennzeichen: 01GK0702) (2011)
- Meeting Abstract : 10. Deutscher Kongress für Versorgungsforschung, 18. GAA-Jahrestagung. Deutsches Netzwerk Versorgungsforschung e. V. ; Gesellschaft für Arzneimittelanwendungsforschung und Arzneimittelepidemiologie e. V. 20.-22.10.2011, Köln Hintergrund: Multimedikation als Folge von Multimorbidität ist ein zentrales Problem der Hausarztpraxis und erhöht das Risiko für unangemessene Arzneimittel-Verordnungen (VO). Um die Medikation bei älteren, multimorbiden Patienten zu optimieren und zu priorisieren, wurde eine computergestützte, durch Medizinische Fachangestellte (MFA) assistierte, komplexe Intervention (checklistengestütztes Vorbereitungsgespräch sowie Überprüfung eingenommener Medikamente durch MFA, Einsatz des web-basierten ArzneimittelinformationsDienstes AiD, spezifisches Arzt-Patienten-Gespräch) entwickelt und in einer 12-monatigen Pilotstudie auf Machbarkeit getestet. Ein auf 9 Items reduzierter MAI [1] wurde eingesetzt, um dessen Eignung als potentielles primäres Outcome der Hauptstudie zu prüfen. Material und Methoden: In die Pilotstudie in 20 Hausarztpraxen mit Cluster-Randomisation auf Praxisebene in Kontrollgruppe (Regelversorgung b. empfohlenem Standard) vs. Interventionsgruppe (komplexe Intervention b. empfohlenem Standard) wurden 5 Pat./Praxis eingeschlossen (≥65 Jahre, ≥3 chron. Erkrankungen, ≥5 Dauermedikamente, MMSE ≥26, Lebenserwartung ≥6 Monate). Zur Bewertung des MAI wurden an Baseline (T0), 6 Wo. (T1) & 3 Mon. (T2) nach Intervention erhoben: VO, Diagnosen, Natrium, Kalium & Kreatinin i.S., Größe, Gewicht, Geschlecht, Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) [2] durch die Hausarztpraxis; Symptome für unerwünschte Arzneimittelwirkungen im Patienten-Telefoninterview. Für den MAI wurde die Angemessenheit jeder VO in den 9 Kategorien Indikation, Effektivität, Dosierung, korrekter & praktikabler Applikationsweg, Arzneimittelwechselwirkung, Drug-disease-Interaktion, Doppelverordnung, Anwendungsdauer 3-stufig bewertet (1 = korrekt - 3 = unkorrekt) und für die Auswertung auf Patientenebene summiert. Die Bewertung erfolgte ohne Kenntnis der Gruppenzugehörigkeit. Deskriptive Statistiken und Reliabilitätsanalysen, ungewichtete Auswertung und Gewichtung n. Bregnhoj [3]. Ergebnisse: Es wurden N=100 Patienten in die Studie eingeschlossen, im Mittel 76 Jahre (Standardabweichung, SD 6; Range, R: 64-93) , 52% Frauen, durchschnittlich 9 VO/Pat. (SD 2; R 4-16), mittlerer CIRS-Score 10 (SD 4; R 0-23). Basierend auf N=851 VO (100 Pat.) zu T0 betrug der Reliabilitätskoeffizient (RK, Cronbachs Alpha) der ungewichteten 9 Items 0,70. Items 1-5 wiesen akzeptable Trennschärfen auf (0,52-0,64), die der Items 6, 7 & 9 fielen mit 0,21-0,29 niedriger aus, die des Item 8 betrug 0,06. Auf der Basis der 9 gewichteten Items fiel die interne Konsistenz des MAI erwartet höher aus (0,75). Die Reliabilitätsanalysen auf VO-Ebene zeigten einen RK von 0,67 (ungewichtet) vs. 0,75 (gewichtet), die Trennschärfen waren vergleichbar. Zur Zwischenauswertung betrug der MAI (T1-T0) in der Interventionsgruppe (5 Praxen, 24 Pat.) -0,9 (SD 5,6), in der Kontrollgruppe (7 Praxen, 35 Pat.) -0,5 (SD 4,9); die Differenz zwischen beiden Gruppen Mi–Mk -0,4 [95% Konfidenzintervall: -3,4;2,6]. Schlussfolgerung: Der MAI ist als potentielles primäres Outcome in der Hauptstudie geeignet: wenige fehlende Werte, Darstellung von Unterschieden prä-post und zwischen den Gruppen, akzeptable interne Konsistenz. Der niedrige Trennschärfekoeffizient des Items 8 weist darauf hin, dass dieses Item nicht mit dem Gesamt-Skalenwert korreliert, auch die Items 6, 7 und 9 korrelieren wesentlich schwächer mit dem Gesamt-Skalenwert als die Items 1 bis 5. Eine Wichtung z.B. der Items 2, 5, 6 und 9 könnte erwogen werden, um den Fokus der Intervention in der Hauptzielgröße angemessen abzubilden.
- Brauchen evidenzbasierte Leitlinien Konsens? : Erfahrungen aus dem Entwicklungsprozess der DEGAM-Leitlinie Herzinsuffizienz ; meeting abstract (2007)
- Hintergrund Die chronische Herzinsuffizienz erfordert als Systemerkrankung hausärztliche sowie spezialärztliche Versorgung. Die evidenzbasierte DEGAM-Leitlinie (LL) zur hausärztlichen Versorgung der Herzinsuffizienz wurde formal interdisziplinär konsentiert, nachdem der Entwurf ein mehrstufiges internes und externes Reviewverfahren durchlaufen hatte. Methode Wissenschaftliche Fachgesellschaften und Organisationen (FG/O) wurden zu einem Nominalen Gruppenprozeß (NGP) eingeladen und entsandten autorisierte Teilnehmer. Diese erhielten den LL-Entwurf inkl. Methodenreport sowie eine Liste zentraler LL-Empfehlungen für ein persönliches Ranking (44-Items; 6-stufige Likert-Skala). Beim Konsentierungstreffen wurden aus dem 1. Ranking Themen ohne deutliche Übereinstimmung (Likert =4) identifiziert, unter Hinzunahme weiterer Themenvorschläge in priorisierter Reihenfolge diskutiert und erneut abgestimmt. Der überarbeitete LL-Entwurf wurde in einem zweiten Ranking im Delphi-Verfahren konsentiert. Ergebnisse Im Abstimmungsprozess mit 10 Vertretern aus 11 FG/O wurden ~35 Themen diskutiert. Bei zwei Empfehlungen mit fehlender Evidenz wurde ein von internationalen LL abweichender Konsens getroffen (z.B. ß-Blocker bei asymptomatischen Patienten nur nach durchgemachtem Herzinfarkt). Vier Formulierungen bewertenden Charakters zur BNP-Bestimmung wurden zugunsten einer Negativempfehlung gestrichen, eine Empfehlung mit der STIKO harmonisiert (Pneumokokkenimpfung), bei weiteren wurden ergänzende Konditionen im Wortlaut eingefügt oder sprachliche Änderungen vorgenommen. Fünf Themen wurden neu erstellt (z.B. kontraindizierte Pharmaka). Bis auf drei (z.B. Flussdiagramme nicht vollständig konsensfähig: unangemessene Vereinfachung vs. fehlende Praktikabilität) wurden alle Empfehlungen der LL konsentiert. Schlussfolgerungen Der NGP ist für evidenzbasierte LL eine geeignete Vorgehensweise. Interdisziplinarität ist insbesondere bei Entscheidungsunsicherheit (fehlende oder inkonsistente Evidenz) und zur Schnittstellendefinition wertvoll.
- Changes in prescribed medicines in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in general practice (2018)
- Background: Treatment complexity rises in line with the number of drugs, single doses, and administration methods, thereby threatening patient adherence. Patients with multimorbidity often need flexible, individualised treatment regimens, but alterations during the course of treatment may further increase complexity. The objective of our study was to explore medication changes in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in general practice. Methods: We retrospectively analysed data from the cluster-randomised PRIMUM trial (PRIoritisation of MUltimedication in Multimorbidity) conducted in 72 general practices. We developed an algorithm for active pharmaceutical ingredients (API), strength, dosage, and administration method to assess changes in physician-reported medication data during two intervals (baseline to six-months: ∆1; six- to nine-months: ∆2), analysed them descriptively at prescription and patient levels, and checked for intervention effects. Results: Of 502 patients (median age 72 years, 52% female), 464 completed the study. Changes occurred in 98.6% of patients (changes were 19% more likely in the intervention group): API changes during ∆1 and ∆2 occurred in 414 (82.5%) and 338 (67.3%) of patients, dosage alterations in 372 (74.1%) and 296 (59.2%), and changes in API strength in 158 (31.5%) and 138 (27.5%) respectively. Administration method changed in 79 (16%) of patients in both ∆1 and ∆2. Simvastatin, metformin and aspirin were most frequently subject to alterations. Conclusion: Medication regimens in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy changed frequently. These are mostly due to discontinuations and dosage alterations, followed by additions and restarts. These findings cast doubt on the effectiveness of cross-sectional assessments of medication and support longitudinal assessments where possible. Trial registration: 1. Prospective registration: Trial registration number: NCT01171339; Name of registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; Date of registration: July 27, 2010; Date of enrolment of the first participant to the trial: August 12, 2010. 2. Peer reviewed trial registration: Trial registration number: ISRCTN99526053; Name of registry: Controlled Trials; Date of registration: August 31, 2010; Date of enrolment of the first participant to the trial: August 12, 2010.
- Study protocol : evaluation of specialized outpatient palliative care (SOPC) in the German state of Hesse (ELSAH study) - work package II ; palliative care for pediatric patients (2018)
- Background: In 2007, the European Association of Palliative Care (EAPC) provided a comprehensive set of recommendations and standards for the provision of adequate pediatric palliative care. A number of studies have shown deficits in pediatric palliative care compared to EAPC standards. In Germany, pediatric palliative care patients can be referred to specialized outpatient palliative care (SOPC) services, which are known to enhance quality of life, e.g. by avoiding hospitalization. However, current regulations for the provision of SOPC in Germany do not account for the different circumstances and needs of children and their families compared to adult palliative care patients. The "Evaluation of specialized outpatient palliative care (SOPC) in the German state of Hesse (ELSAH)" study aims to perform a needs assessment for pediatric patients (children, adolescents and young adults) receiving SOPC. This paper presents the study protocol for this assessment (work package II). Methods/Design: The study uses a sequential mixed-methods study design with a focus on qualitative research. Data collection from professional and family caregivers and, as far as possible, pediatric patients, will involve both a written questionnaire based on European recommendations for pediatric palliative care, and semi-structured interviews. Additionally, professional caregivers will take part in focus group discussions and participatory observations. Interviews and focus groups will be tape- or video-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed in accordance with the principles of grounded theory (interviews) and content analysis (focus groups). A structured field note template will be used to record notes taken during the participatory observations. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, version 22 or higher) will be used for descriptive statistical analyses. The qualitative data analyses will be software-assisted by MAXQDA (version 12 or higher). Discussion: This study will provide important information on what matters most to family caregivers and pediatric patients receiving SOPC. The results will add valuable knowledge to the criteria that distinguish SOPC for pediatric from SOPC for adult patients, and will provide an indication of how the German SOPC rule of procedure can be optimized to satisfy the special needs of pediatric patients. Trial registration: Internet Portal of the German Clinical Trials Register (www.germanctr.de, DRKS-ID: DRKS00012431).
- Jeder Fehler zählt : das Frankfurter Fehlerberichts- und Lernsystem für Hausarztpraxen (2007)
- Anderer Fehler sind gute Lehrer « – so lautet ein nur wenig bekanntes altes deutsches Sprichwort. Für medizinische Fehler galt das die längste Zeit nicht: entweder totgeschwiegen oder als »Kunstfehler « in das Licht der Öffentlichkeit gezerrt, entzogen sich ärztliche Fehler einer systematischen Analyse. Damit hat die Medizin lange eine wichtige Chance vertan. Am Institut für Allgemeinmedizin der Universität Frankfurt beschäftigt sich seit einigen Jahren ein Team unter Leitung von Prof. Dr. Ferdinand Gerlach intensiv mit der Fehlerforschung. ...
- Predictors of dropout in the German disease management program for type 2 diabetes (2012)
- Background: To improve and assess the effectiveness of disease management programs (DMPs), it is critical to understand how many people drop out of disease management programs and why. Methods: We used routine data provided by a statutory health insurance fund from the regions North Rhine, North Wurttemberg and Hesse. As part of the German DMP for type 2 diabetes, the insurance fund received regular documentation of all members participating in the program. We followed 10,989 patients who enrolled in the DMP between July 2004 and December 2005 until the end of 2007 to study how many patients dropped out of the program. Dropout was defined based on the discontinuation of program documentation on a particular patient, excluding situations in which the patient died or left the insurance fund. Predictors of dropout, assessed at the time of program enrolment, were explored using logistic regression analysis. Results: 5.5% of the patients dropped out of the disease management program within the observation period. Predictors of dropout at the time of enrolment were: region; retirement status; the number of secondary diseases; presence of a disabling secondary disease; doctors recommendations to stop smoking or to seek nutritional counselling; and the completion and outcome of the routine foot and eye exams. Different trends of dropout were observed among retired and employed patients: retired patients of old age, who possibly drop out of the program due to other health care priorities and employed people of younger age who have not yet developed many secondary diseases, but were recommended to change their lifestyle. Conclusions: Overall, dropout rates for the German disease management programs for type 2 diabetes were low compared to other studies. Factors assessed at the time of program enrolment were predictive of later dropout and should be further studied to provide information for future program improvements.
- The systematic guideline review : method, rationale, and test on chronic heart failure (2009)
- Background Evidence-based guidelines potentially improve healthcare. However, their de-novo-development requires substantial resources - especially for complex conditions, and adaptation may be biased by contextually influenced recommendations in source guidelines. In this paper we describe a new approach to guideline development - the systematic guideline review method (SGR), and its application in the development of an evidence-based guideline for family physicians on chronic heart failure (CHF). Methods A systematic search for guidelines was carried out. Evidence-based guidelines on CHF management in adults in ambulatory care published in English or German between the years 2000 and 2004 were included. Guidelines on acute or right heart failure were excluded. Eligibility was assessed by two reviewers, methodological quality of selected guidelines was appraised using the AGREE-instrument, and a framework of relevant clinical questions for diagnostics and treatment was derived. Data were extracted into evidence tables, systematically compared by means of a consistency analysis and synthesized in a preliminary draft. Most relevant primary sources were re-assessed to verify the cited evidence. Evidence and recommendations were summarized in a draft guideline. Results Of 16 included guidelines five were of good quality. A total of 35 recommendations were systematically compared: 25/35 were consistent, 9/35 inconsistent, and 1/35 unratable (derived from a single guideline). Of the 25 consistencies, 14 based on consensus, seven on evidence and four differed in grading. Major inconsistencies were found in 3/9 of the inconsistent recommendations. We re-evaluated the evidence for 17 recommendations (evidence-based, differing evidence levels and minor inconsistencies) the majority was congruent. Incongruencies were found, where the stated evidence could not be verified in the cited primary sources, or where the evaluation in the source guidelines focused on treatment benefits and underestimated the risks. The draft guideline was completed in 8.5 man-months. The main limitation to this study was the lack of a second reviewer. Conclusions The systematic guideline review including framework development, consistency analysis and validation is an effective, valid, and resource saving-approach to the development of evidence-based guidelines.
- Chronic heart failure patients’ experiences of German healthcare services : a protocol for a scoping review (2019)
- 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.
