Search

In spite of a well-developed and complex mental healthcare system in Germany, problems remain in the capacity of psychotherapeutic care with an undersupply and long waiting times for provision of outpatient psychotherapeutic care.The analyses address the current level of psychotherapeutic care and the role of individual medical specialties in outpatient psychotherapeutic care in Germany.The analyses are based on secondary data from three statutory health insurance companies and the German pension funds for the years 2005-2007. Anonymized treatment data from 3.3 million insured persons with a diagnosis of a mental disorder (ICD-10 groups F0-F5) were analyzed.In outpatient treatment 9,670,588 psychotherapeutic accounting codes were analyzed of which 33 % were psychiatric, psychosomatic or psychotherapeutic consultations that are not covered by the scope of psychotherapy according to the standard regulations (psychotherapy guidelines). The most frequently used psychotherapeutic services were verbal interventions (accounting codes 35.100 and 31.110) and psychiatric consultations (accounting codes 14.220, 21.220 and 21.221), independent of the mental disorder. Of the patients 5.9 % received directive psychotherapy. The provider-specific analysis showed a great variation in the kind of accounting codes, which were brought into account by the different providers.With regard to the reform efforts in psychotherapeutic care, longitudinal trends in the utilization and quality of psychotherapeutic care in the individual fields of treatment should be analyzed in follow-up studies.

Prior to nationwide implementation, the feasibility of newly developed quality indicators must be assessed. The aim of this multicenter feasibility test was an evaluation of the measurability of cross-sectoral quality indicators for depression and schizophrenia by means of routine data.The feasibility of the quality indicators was assessed in ten specialist clinics for psychiatry and psychotherapy by means of retrospective analyses of anonymous routine data. The data were extracted from the routine clinical documentation of the hospital information systems and the data from the admission and discharge sheets of the basic documentation in psychiatry (BADO) were additionally used for some clinics. Analyses were conducted for all cases of adults diagnosed with depression or schizophrenia within predefined assessment periods.In total five indicators for depression and nine indicators for schizophrenia were assessed and evaluated as measurable or measurable to a limited extent, sometimes with slight adaptations in the operationalization of the indicator. Due to variations in documentation, some indicators could not be calculated for all clinics. Most indicators could be collated with the data from the BADO.An assessment of indicators that measure quality-relevant aspects of care in depression and schizophrenia, is partially feasible by means of current routine data documentation analysis from the participating clinics. However, differing documentation methodologies in the participating clinics impeded a uniform assessment; therefore, for the implementation of nationwide minimum standards for the quality assurance of mental healthcare, a uniform cross-sectoral documentation methodology should be adapted to consensus and relevant quality indicators. The BADO appears to be a suitable instrument for this purpose.

The German health interview and examination survey for adults (DEGS1) with the mental health module (DEGS1-MH) is the successor to the last survey of mental disorders in the general German population 15 years ago (GHS-MHS). This paper reports the basic findings on the 12-month prevalence of mental disorders, associated disabilities and self-reported healthcare utilization.A representative national cohort (age range 18-79 years, n = 5,317) was selected and individuals were personally examined (87.5 % face to face and 12.5 % via telephone) by a comprehensive clinical interview using the composite international diagnostic interview (CIDI) questionnaire.The overall 12-month prevalence of mental disorders was 27.7 % with substantial differences between subgroups (e.g. sex, age, socioeconomic status). Mental disorders were found to be particularly impairing (elevated number of disability days). Less than 50 % of those affected reported to be in contact with health services due to mental health problems within the last 12 months (range 10-40 % depending on the number of diagnoses).Mental disorders were found to be commonplace with a prevalence level comparable to that found in the 1998 predecessor study but several further adjustments will have to be made for a sound methodological comparison between the studies. Apart from individual distress, elevated self-reported disability indicated a high societal disease burden of mental disorders (also in comparison with many somatic diseases). Despite a relatively comprehensive and well developed mental healthcare system in Germany there are still optimisation needs for treatment rates.

Treatment guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for diagnosis and treatment to assist clinicians, care givers and patients in finding an optimized treatment option in given clinical situations. Specific treatment guidelines for schizophrenia issued by the German Association of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (DGPPN) and published under the auspices of the Working Group for Scientific Medical Specialist Societies (AWMF) (i.e. fulfilling the highest quality standards at the S3 level) have been available in Germany since 2006. Currently, a comprehensive revision process is ongoing to update these guidelines with the aim to publish the revision before 2014. However, since publication of the German treatment guidelines many clinical trials and meta-analyses have been published which appear to make a new evaluation of antipsychotic drug treatment necessary. Currently available national and international guidelines, such as the WFSBP, PORT and NICE guidelines, place less emphasis on the general superiority of atypical antipsychotic medication but support the idea to evaluate antipsychotic drugs based on the side effect profiles. The present overview discusses the recent guidelines development processes regarding schizophrenia and compares the available German treatment guidelines with recently published international guidelines. Current developments and issues for discussion are described in detail to provide possible implications for changes in treatment recommendations.

Valid and feasible quality indicators can measure healthcare quality and show potential for improvement in care. The German Association for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy (DGPPN) has developed trans-sectoral quality indicator sets for four mental disorders with high prevalence (alcohol dependence, dementia, depression and schizophrenia).The DGPPN followed a structured multistage process and used guideline recommendations and the results of systematic evidence searches as the basis for the development of these quality indicators. This was followed by a structured consensus process for all quality indicators.Four evidence and consensus-based, diagnosis-specific and trans-sectoral quality indicator sets have been developed.It is possible to develop quality indicators on the basis of guideline recommendations. The implementation of the DGPPN quality indicators will play a crucial role in order to evaluate their utility and feasibility as quality measures for German mental healthcare.

In August 2002 the Japanese Society of Psychiatry and Neurology decided to rename the Japanese expression for schizophrenia from Sêshin Bunretsu Byô to Tôgô Shicchô Shô. Currently the psychiatric classification systems ICD-10 and DSM-IV are under revision. Against this background the Japanese process of renaming a psychiatric disorder is of high interest as far as the clinical, social and cultural implications of the new name are concerned.The authors give an overview of the Japanese process of renaming schizophrenia. Its background and realization are explained and the expectations of Japanese physicians, patients and their families related to the new name are analysed. Furthermore, its effects are evaluated. The aim of the paper is to clarify in how far the Japanese example may serve as a model for evaluating the possible implications that a renaming or nosological redefinition of schizophrenia might have in the course of the revision process of ICD 10 and DSM IV.

The Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) is the most common cause of acute paralysis. It requires early institution of therapy to avoid life-threatening complications, to speed up recovery and minimize residual handicap. Advances in supportive care (treatment of infections, anticoagulation) and the introduction of intensive care (assisted ventilation, treatment of autonomic disturbances) have greatly improved the management of this disease and consequently its prognosis. A better understanding of the underlying immune mechanisms prompted pathogenetically oriented therapy. Plasma exchange and high dose intravenous immunoglobulin have been demonstrated in large controlled trials to hasten recovery in GBS. Problems of these studies are discussed and the presumed mode of action of these therapies is reviewed. Corticosteroids have shown no benefit. Ongoing trials are listed and future strategies for immunointervention are outlined.