Refine
Year of publication
- 2018 (7) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (7)
Has Fulltext
- yes (7)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (7)
Keywords
- Multimorbidity (2)
- Multiple chronic conditions (2)
- Patients (2)
- Polypharmacy (2)
- Allgemeinmedizin (1)
- Curriculum (1)
- Depression (1)
- Diagnostic medicine (1)
- General practice (1)
- Hausarztmangel (1)
Institute
- Medizin (7)
- Erziehungswissenschaften (1)
- Pharmazie (1)
- Psychologie (1)
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.
Zielsetzung: Beteiligung von Medizinstudierenden im Rahmen der konzeptionellen Entwicklung eines zielgruppenspezifischen und attraktiven allgemeinmedizinischen Lehrangebots im ländlichen Raum.
Methodik: Es wurde ein Fragebogen entwickelt, der die Bewertung der Studierenden hinsichtlich des aktuellen Ablaufs ihres Studiums, den späteren Berufswunsch sowie die Anforderungen an ein zu entwickelndes allgemeinmedizinisches Schwerpunktprogramm im ländlichen Raum erfasst. Mittels einer Online-Befragung wurden im Sommer 2015 alle Medizinstudierende ab dem vierten vorklinischen Semester (n=2.150) der Goethe-Universität Frankfurt einmalig befragt. Die statistische Auswertung erfolgte primär deskriptiv. Die persönliche Einstellung hinsichtlich der Bereitschaft, als Hausarzt tätig zu werden, wurde auf statistische Signifikanz überprüft. Zudem wurde erhoben, ob ein messbarer Zusammenhang zwischen der eigenen Herkunft und dem späteren Wunscharbeitsort besteht.
Ergebnisse: Von insgesamt 2.150 kontaktierten Studierenden nahmen 617 an der Befragung teil (Rücklaufquote=28,7%). Die Ergebnisse repräsentieren eine große Bandbreite an Ideen und Anregungen, die sowohl die Meinung von Befürwortern als auch eher kritisch gegenüber der Lehre in der Allgemeinmedizin eingestellten Medizinstudierenden widerspiegeln. Von dem geplanten Schwerpunktprogramm erwarten die Studierenden einen starken Praxisbezug ebenso wie das Kennenlernen administrativer sowie wirtschaftlicher Hintergründe zum Führen einer Praxis.
Schlussfolgerungen: Durch die Einbeziehung der Zielgruppe am Entwicklungsprozess bestand die Möglichkeit, das zu entwickelnde Schwerpunktprogramm auf die späteren Teilnehmer passgenauer zuzuschneiden. Zudem ist zu erwarten, dass die Beteiligung der Studierenden zu einer höheren Akzeptanz des Programms führt. Die gewonnenen Ergebnisse zur Gestaltung eines Lehrangebots können als Orientierung für die mögliche Entwicklung ähnlicher Schwerpunktprogramme an anderen medizinischen Fakultäten dienen.
Aim: Participation of medical students in the conceptual development of targeted and attractive teaching content for rural areas.
Method: A questionnaire was developed to gather information on students' views of their current medical studies, career interests, and what requirements should be met by an optional rural health program in general practice. By means of an online survey in summer 2015, all medical students from the fourth preclinical semester onwards (n=2,150) at Goethe University Frankfurt were surveyed on one occasion. Statistical analysis was mainly descriptive. Personal attitudes towards a career as a family practitioner were examined for statistical significance. Further information was gathered on whether a measurable correlation exists between personal background and desired work location.
Results: Of the 2,150 students that were contacted, 617 participated in the survey (response rate=28.7%). The results covered a wide range of ideas and recommendations and were representative both of medical students with a positive attitude toward general practice, as well as those that were rather critical of teaching in general practice. The students expected the planned health program to be of strong practical relevance and to acquaint them with the administrative and economic aspects of running a practice.
Conclusions: By including the target group in the development process, it was possible to tailor the health program to meet the needs of future participants more precisely. Student participation can also be expected to result in greater acceptance of the program. The results on teaching content may also provide other medical faculties with orientation when developing comparable programs.
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.
Purpose: Collaborative care is effective in improving symptoms of patients with depression. The aims of this study were to characterize symptom trajectories in patients with major depression during one year of collaborative care and to explore associations between baseline characteristics and symptom trajectories.
Methods: We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial in primary care. The collaborative care intervention comprised case management and behavioral activation. We used the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) to assess symptom severity as the primary outcome. Statistical analyses comprised latent growth mixture modeling and a hierarchical binary logistic regression model.
Results: We included 74 practices and 626 patients (310 intervention and 316 control recipients) at baseline. Based on a minimum of 12 measurement points for each intervention recipient, we identified two latent trajectories, which we labeled "fast improvers" (60.5%) and "slow improvers" (39.5%). At all measurements after baseline, "fast improvers" presented higher PHQ mean values than "slow improvers". At baseline, "fast improvers" presented fewer physical conditions, higher health-related quality of life, and had made fewer suicide attempts in their history.
Conclusions: A notable proportion of 39.5% of patients improved only "slowly" and probably needed more intense treatment. The third follow-up in month two could well be a sensible time to adjust treatment to support "slow improvers".
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.
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).