Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (30)
- Conference Proceeding (2)
Keywords
- Patients (3)
- Allgemeinmedizin (2)
- Case management (2)
- General practice (2)
- Multimorbidity (2)
- Multiple chronic conditions (2)
- Oral anticoagulation (2)
- Polypharmacy (2)
- Primary care (2)
- Quality of life (2)
Institute
- Resource utilisation and costs of depressive patients in Germany : results from the primary care monitoring for depressive patients trial (2014)
- Background. Depression is the most common type of mental disorder in Germany. It is associated with a high level of suffering for individuals and imposes a significant burden on society. The aim of this study was to estimate the depression related costs in Germany taking a societal perspective. Materials and Methods. Data were collected from the primary care monitoring for depressive patients trial (PRoMPT) of patients with major depressive disorder who were treated in a primary care setting. Resource utilisation and days of sick leave were observed and analysed over a 1-year period. Results. Average depression related costs of €3813 were calculated. Significant differences in total costs due to sex were demonstrated. Male patients had considerable higher total costs than female patients, whereas single cost categories did not differ significantly. Further, differences in costs according to severity of disease and age were observed. The economic burden to society was estimated at €15.6 billion per year. Conclusion. The study results show that depression poses a significant economic burden to society. There is a high potential for prevention, treatment, and patient management innovations to identify and treat patients at an early stage.
- "Ein System der organisierten Verantwortungslosigkeit" : Prof. Ferdinand Gerlach kritisiert falsche Anreizsysteme und die Kluft zwischen ambulanter und stationärer Versorgung (2012)
- Prof. Ferdinand Gerlach im Gespräch mit FF-Redakteurin Dr. Anne Hardy.
- 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. ...
- 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.
- Primary care practice-based care management for chronically ill patients (PraCMan): study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN56104508] (2011)
- Background: Care management programmes are an effective approach to care for high risk patients with complex care needs resulting from multiple co-occurring medical and non-medical conditions. These patients are likely to be hospitalized for a potentially "avoidable" cause. Nurse-led care management programmes for high risk elderly patients showed promising results. Care management programmes based on health care assistants (HCAs) targeting adult patients with a high risk of hospitalisation may be an innovative approach to deliver cost-efficient intensified care to patients most in need. Methods: PraCMan is a cluster randomized controlled trial with primary care practices as unit of randomisation. The study evaluates a complex primary care practice-based care management of patients at high risk for future hospitalizations. Eligible patients either suffer from type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic heart failure or any combination. Patients with a high likelihood of hospitalization within the following 12 months (based on insurance data) will be included in the trial. During 12 months of intervention patients of the care management group receive comprehensive assessment of medical and non-medical needs and resources as well as regular structured monitoring of symptoms. Assessment and monitoring will be performed by trained HCAs from the participating practices. Additionally, patients will receive written information, symptom diaries, action plans and a medication plan to improve self-management capabilities. This intervention is addition to usual care. Patients from the control group receive usual care. Primary outcome is the number of all-cause hospitalizations at 12 months follow-up, assessed by insurance claims data. Secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life (SF12, EQ5D), quality of chronic illness care (PACIC), health care utilisation and costs, medication adherence (MARS), depression status and severity (PHQ-9), self-management capabilities and clinical parameters. Data collection will be performed at baseline, 12 and 24 months (12 months post-intervention). Discussion: Practice-based care management for high risk individuals involving trained HCAs appears to be a promising approach to face the needs of an aging population with increasing care demands. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56104508
- Patient-perceived barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a medication review in primary care : a qualitative thematic analysis (2018)
- Background: Although polypharmacy can cause adverse health outcomes, patients often know little about their medication. A regularly conducted medication review (MR) can help provide an overview of a patient’s medication, and benefit patients by enhancing their knowledge of their drugs. As little is known about patient attitudes towards MRs in primary care, the objective of this study was to gain insight into patient-perceived barriers and facilitators to the implementation of an MR. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study with a convenience sample of 31 patients (age ≥ 60 years, ≥3 chronic diseases, taking ≥5 drugs/d); in Hesse, Germany, in February 2016. We conducted two focus groups and, in order to ensure the participation of elderly patients with reduced mobility, 16 telephone interviews. Both relied on a semi-structured interview guide dealing with the following subjects: patients’ experience of polypharmacy, general design of MRs, potential barriers and facilitators to implementation etc. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed by two researchers using thematic analysis. Results: Patients’ average age was 74 years (range 62–88 years). We identified barriers and facilitators for four main topics regarding the implementation of MRs in primary care: patient participation, GP-led MRs, pharmacist-led MRs, and the involvement of healthcare assistants in MRs. Barriers to patient participation concerned patient autonomy, while facilitators involved patient awareness of medication-related problems. Barriers to GP-led MRs concerned GP’s lack of resources while facilitators related to the trusting relationship between patient and GP. Pharmacist-led MRs might be hindered by a lack of patients’ confidence in pharmacists’ expertise, but facilitated by pharmacies’ digital records of the patients’ medications. Regarding the involvement of healthcare assistants in MRs, a potential barrier was patients’ uncertainty regarding the extent of their training. Patients could, however, imagine GPs delegating some aspects of MRs to them. Conclusions: Our study suggests that patients regard MRs as beneficial and expect indications for their medicines to be checked, and possible interactions to be identified. To foster the implementation of MRs in primary care, it is important to consider barriers and facilitators to the four identified topics.
- 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).
- Effectiveness of a complex intervention on Prioritising Multimedication in Multimorbidity (PRIMUM) in primary care : results of a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial (2018)
- Objectives: Investigate the effectiveness of a complex intervention aimed at improving the appropriateness of medication in older patients with multimorbidity in general practice. Design: Pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with general practice as unit of randomisation. Setting: 72 general practices in Hesse, Germany. Participants: 505 randomly sampled, cognitively intact patients (≥60 years, ≥3 chronic conditions under pharmacological treatment, ≥5 long-term drug prescriptions with systemic effects); 465 patients and 71 practices completed the study. Interventions: Intervention group (IG): The healthcare assistant conducted a checklist-based interview with patients on medication-related problems and reconciled their medications. Assisted by a computerised decision support system, the general practitioner optimised medication, discussed it with patients and adjusted it accordingly. The control group (CG) continued with usual care. Outcome measures: The primary outcome was a modified Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI, excluding item 10 on cost-effectiveness), assessed in blinded medication reviews and calculated as the difference between baseline and after 6 months; secondary outcomes after 6 and 9 months’ follow-up: quality of life, functioning, medication adherence, and so on. Results: At baseline, a high proportion of patients had appropriate to mildly inappropriate prescriptions (MAI 0–5 points: n=350 patients). Randomisation revealed balanced groups (IG: 36 practices/252 patients; CG: 36/253). Intervention had no significant effect on primary outcome: mean MAI sum scores decreased by 0.3 points in IG and 0.8 points in CG, resulting in a non-significant adjusted mean difference of 0.7 (95% CI −0.2 to 1.6) points in favour of CG. Secondary outcomes showed non-significant changes (quality of life slightly improved in IG but continued to decline in CG) or remained stable (functioning, medication adherence). Conclusions: The intervention had no significant effects. Many patients already received appropriate prescriptions and enjoyed good quality of life and functional status. We can therefore conclude that in our study, there was not enough scope for improvement. Trial registration number: ISRCTN99526053. NCT01171339; Results.
