Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (44) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (44) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (44) (remove)
Keywords
- Patients (4)
- multimorbidity (4)
- General practice (3)
- Multimorbidity (3)
- Oral anticoagulation (3)
- Polypharmacy (3)
- Primary care (3)
- polypharmacy (3)
- Allgemeinmedizin (2)
- Case management (2)
Institute
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.
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: Oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT) is a challenge in general practice, especially for high-risk groups such as the elderly. Insufficient patient knowledge about safety-relevant aspects of OAT is considered to be one of the main reasons for complications. The research question addressed in this manuscript is whether a complex intervention that includes practice-based case management, self-management of OAT and additional patient and practice team education improves patient knowledge about anticoagulation therapy compared to a control group of patients receiving usual care (as a secondary objective of the Primary Care Management for Optimised Antithrombotic Treatment (PICANT) trial).
Methods: The cluster-randomised controlled PICANT trial was conducted in 52 general practices in Germany, between 2012 and 2015. Trial participants were patients with a long-term indication for oral anticoagulation. A questionnaire was used to assess knowledge at baseline, after 12, and after 24 months. The questionnaire consists of 13 items (with a range of 0 to 13 sum-score points) covering topics related to intervention. Differences in the development of patient knowledge between intervention and control groups compared to baseline were assessed for each follow-up by means of linear mixed-effects models.
Results: Seven hundred thirty-six patients were included at baseline, of whom 95.4% continued to participate after 12 months, and 89.3% after 24 months. The average age of patients was 73.5 years (SD 9.4), and they mainly suffered from atrial fibrillation (81.1%). Patients in the intervention and control groups had similar knowledge about oral anticoagulation at baseline (5.6 (SD 2.3) in both groups). After 12 months, the improvement in the level of knowledge (compared to baseline) was significantly larger in the intervention group than in the control group (0.78 (SD 2.5) vs. 0.04 (SD 2.3); p = 0.0009). After 24 months, the difference between both groups was still statistically significant (0.6 (SD 2.6) vs. -0.3 (SD 2.3); p = 0.0001).
Conclusion: Since this intervention was effective, it should be established in general practice as a means of improving patient knowledge about oral anticoagulation.
Trial registration: Current controlled trials ISRCTN41847489; Date of registration: 13/04/2012
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.
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).
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: Although the risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC) is 2-4 times higher in case of a positive family history, risk-adapted screening programs for family members related to CRC- patients do not exist in the German health care system. CRC screening recommendations for persons under 55 years of age that have a family predisposition have been published in several guidelines.
The primary aim of this study is to determine the frequency of positive family history of CRC (1st degree relatives with CRC) among 40–54 year old persons in a general practitioner (GP) setting in Germany. Secondary aims are to detect the frequency of occurrence of colorectal neoplasms (CRC and advanced adenomas) in 1st degree relatives of CRC patients and to identify the variables (e.g. demographic, genetic, epigenetic and proteomic characteristics) that are associated with it. This study also explores whether evidence-based information contributes to informed decisions and how screening participation correlates with anxiety and (anticipated) regret.
Methods/Design: Prior to the beginning of the study, the GP team (GP and one health care assistant) in around 50 practices will be trained, and about 8,750 persons that are registered with them will be asked to complete the “Network against colorectal cancer” questionnaire. The 10 % who are expected to have a positive family history will then be invited to give their informed consent to participate in the study. All individuals with positive family history will be provided with evidence-based information and prevention strategies. We plan to examine each participant’s family history of CRC in detail and to collect information on further variables (e.g. demographics) associated with increased risk. Additional stool and blood samples will be collected from study-participants who decide to undergo a colonoscopy (n ~ 350) and then analyzed at the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg to see whether further relevant variables are associated with an increased risk of CRC. One screening list and four questionnaires will be used to collect the data, and a detailed statistical analysis plan will be provided before the database is closed (expected to be June 30, 2015).
Discussion: It is anticipated that when persons with a family history of colorectal cancer have been provided with professional advice by the practice team, there will be an increase in the availability of valid information on the frequency of affected individuals and an increase in the number of persons making informed decisions. We also expect to identify further variables that are associated with colorectal cancer. This study therefore has translational relevance from lab to practice.
Trial registration: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00006277
Background: Expected growth in the demand for health services has generated interest in the more effective deployment of health care assistants. Programs encouraging German general practitioners (GPs) to share responsibility for care with specially qualified health care assistants in the family practice (VERAHs) have existed for several years. But no studies have been conducted on the tasks German GPs are willing to rely on specially qualified personnel to perform, what they are prepared to delegate to all non-physician practice staff and what they prefer to do themselves.
Methods: As part of an evaluation study on the deployment of VERAHs in GP-centered health care, we used a questionnaire to ask about task delegation within the practice team. From a list of tasks that VERAHs are specifically trained to carry out, GPs were asked to indicate which they actually delegate. We also asked GPs why they had employed a VERAH in their practice and for their opinions on the benefits and limitations of assigning tasks to VERAHs. The aim of the study was to find out which tasks GPs delegate to their specially qualified personnel, which they permit all HCAs to carry out, and which tasks they do not delegate at all.
Results: The survey was filled in and returned by 245 GPs (83%). Some tasks were exclusively delegated to VERAHs (e.g. home visits), while others were delegated to all HCAs (e.g. vaccinations). About half the GPs rated the assessment of mental health, as part of the comprehensive assessment of a patient’s condition, as the sole responsibility of a GP.
The possibility to delegate more complex tasks was the main reason given for employing a VERAH. Doctors said the delegation of home visits provided them with the greatest relief.
Conclusions: In Germany, where GPs are solely accountable for the health care provided in their practices, experience with the transfer of responsibility to other non-physician health care personnel is still very limited. When HCAs have undergone special training, GPs seem to be prepared to delegate tasks that demand a substantial degree of know-how, such as home visits and case management. This “new” role allocation within the practice may signal a shift in the provision of health care by family practice teams in Germany.
Background: In Germany, about 20% of the total population have a migration background. Differences exist between migrants and non-migrants in terms of health care access and utilisation. Colorectal cancer is the second most common malignant tumour in Germany, and incidence, staging and survival chances depend, amongst other things, on ethnicity and lifestyle. The current study investigates whether stage at diagnosis differs between migrants and non-migrants with colorectal cancer in an area of high migration and attempts to identify factors that can explain any differences.
Methods/Design: Data on tumour and migration status will be collected for 1,200 consecutive patients that have received a new, histologically verified diagnosis of colorectal cancer in a high migration area in Germany in the previous three months. The recruitment process is expected to take 16 months and will include gastroenterological private practices and certified centres for intestinal diseases. Descriptive and analytical analysis will be performed: the distribution of variables for migrants versus non-migrants and participants versus non-participants will be analysed using appropriate χ2-, t-, F- or Wilcoxon tests. Multivariable, logistic regression models will be performed, with the dependent variable being the dichotomized stage of the tumour (UICC stage I versus more advanced than UICC stage I). Odds ratios and associated 95%-confidence intervals will be calculated. Furthermore, ordered logistic regression models will be estimated, with the exact stage of the tumour at diagnosis as the dependent variable. Predictors used in the ordered logistic regression will be patient characteristics that are specific to migrants as well as patient characteristics that are not. Interaction models will be estimated in order to investigate whether the effects of patient characteristics on stage of tumour at the time of the initial diagnosis is different in migrants, compared to non-migrants.
Discussion: An association of migration status or other socioeconomic variables with stage at diagnosis of colorectal cancer would be an important finding with respect to equal health care access among migrants. It would point to access barriers or different symptom appraisal and, in the long term, could contribute to the development of new health care concepts for migrants.
Trial registration: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00005056.