Search

Abstract Background Empathy plays an important role in the interaction and communication with patients. Physicians’ empathy has various positive patients’ and physicians’ outcomes. Despite the inclusion of empathy in medical curricula and the relevance of empathy in general and physicians’ concept of it to medical care, there is no common definition of empathy in the clinical context: definitions tend to be abstract and we do not know enough about medical students’ conceptualization of clinical empathy. A clear and consensual definition of empathy is needed to be able to teach and measure empathy adequately. We aimed to explore German medical students’ views and understanding of (clinical) empathy. Methods We interviewed 24 students from the second half of the 3rd year and in their final clinical year (six female and male students in each subgroup) using a semi-structured interview guide. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. We analysed the transcripts using thematic synthesis (Braun & Clarke). Results We found three overarching themes: (1) empathy means perceiving and understanding patients’ needs and acting accordingly, (2) empathy as an interpersonal, intangible construct and (3) taking time for patients. Showing interests, impartiality and openness towards the patients as well as the need to take patients seriously, treating them with respect, having a holistic view on patients and generate some kind of closeness with patients are subthemes of the first overarching theme. Conclusions Although it is often stated that the various existing definitions of empathy are abstract or far from practice, German medical students seem to have a good idea how to define empathy. Their definition resembles definitions known from the literature and used in education. Further research is needed to compare concepts of empathy of medical students from different countries and cultural backgrounds to inform research and teaching. It would also be interesting to investigate how concepts of empathy change over the course of study and affect perceptions of empathy in third party assessments.

Abstract Background Chronic, non-malignant diseases (CNMD) like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), congestive heart failure (CHF) and dementia in advanced stages are very burdensome for patients. Timely palliative care with strong collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and specialist palliative home care (SPHC) teams can reduce symptom burden, hospitalization rates, hospitalization costs and overall healthcare costs. The KOPAL-study on strengthening interprofessional collaboration for patients with palliative care needs tested the effect of an intervention comprising of a SPHC nurse assessment and an interprofessional case conference. This qualitative evaluative study explores patients’, proxies’ and their associates’ motivation to participate in the KOPAL-study and views on the (benefits of the) intervention. Methods We interviewed 13 male and 10 female patients as well as 14 proxies of patients with dementia and six associates of study participants using a semi-structured interview guide. All interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed with deductive-inductive qualitative content analysis. Results Motivation for participation was driven by curiosity, the aim to please the GP or to support research, respectively to help other patients. Few interviewees pointed out to have expected positive effects for themselves. The nurse visit was evaluated very positively. Positive changes concerning health care or quality of life were reported sparsely. Most study participants did not prepare for the SPHC nurse assessment. They had no expectations concerning potential benefits of such an assessment, the interdisciplinary case conference and an early integration of palliative care. The majority of interviewees reported that they did not talk about the nurse visit and the interprofessional case conference with their GPs. Conclusion Our results lead to the conclusion that SPHC nurses can serve as an advocate for the patient and thereby support the patients’ autonomy. GPs should actively discuss the results of the interdisciplinary case conference with patients and collaboratively decide on further actions. Patient participation in the interdisciplinary case conference could be another way to increase the effects of the intervention by empowering patients to not just passively receive the intervention. Trial registration DRKS00017795 German Clinical Trials Register, 17Nov2021, version 05.

Background The management of the long-term sequelae of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection, known as post-COVID-19 syndrome (PCS), continues to challenge the medical community, largely owing to a significant gap in the understanding of its aetiology, diagnosis and effective treatment.Aim To examine general practitioners’ (GPs) experiences of caring for patients with PCS and to identify unmet care needs and opportunities for improvement.Design and Setting This study follows a qualitative design, using in-depth semi-structured telephone interviews with GPs (N = 31) from across Germany.Method Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using qualitative content analysis.Results GPs reported that they were often the first point of contact for patients with persistent symptoms following SARS-CoV-2 infection, with symptoms typically resolving within weeks. While ongoing symptomatic COVID-19 is perceived to be more common, the relevance of PCS to GP practices is considerable given its severe impact on patients’ functioning, social participation and the substantial time required for patient care. GPs coordinate diagnosis and treatment but face challenges because of the unclear definition of PCS and difficulties in attributing symptoms, resulting in a cautious approach to ICD-10 coding. Interviewees highlight lengthy diagnostic pathways and barriers to accessing specialist care.Conclusion The findings confirm the high functional limitations and psychosocial burden of PCS on patients, and the central role of GPs in their care. The study suggests a need for further research and health policy measures to support GPs in navigating diagnostic uncertainty, interprofessional communication and the limited evidence on effective treatments.

Objective Chronic non-malignant diseases (CNMDs) are under-represented in specialist palliative home care (SPHC). The timely integration of SPHC for patients suffering from these diseases can reduce hospitalisation and alleviate symptom burdens. An intervention of an SPHC nurse–patient consultation followed by an interprofessional telephone case conference with the general practitioner (GP) was tested in the KOPAL trial (‘Concept for strengthening interprofessional collaboration for patients with palliative care needs’). As part of the trial, the aim of this study was to gain in-depth insights into SPHC physicians’ perspective on care with and without the KOPAL intervention for patients with congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and dementia (D).Design Qualitative evaluation of the KOPAL intervention from the perspective of SPHC physicians as part of the KOPAL trial. Thematic-focused narrative interviews analysed with grounded theory.Setting We conducted the KOPAL study and its qualitative evaluation in Lower Saxony and the greater Hamburg area, Germany.Participants 11 physicians from 14 SPHC teams who participated in the trial were interviewed.Results A grounded theory of the necessity of collaboration between GPs and SPHC teams for patients with CHF, COPD and dementia was developed. From the perspective of SPHC physicians, patients with CNMD are generally difficult to manage in GP care. The timing of SPHC initiation is patient-specific, underscoring the need for collaboration between SPHC physicians and GPs. However, the primary mandate for healthcare should remain with GPs. SPHC physicians actively seek collaboration with GPs (eg, through the KOPAL intervention), viewing themselves as advisors for GPs and aspiring to collaborate as equal partners.Conclusion Effective communication and the negotiation of future interprofessional collaboration are essential for SPHC teams.Trial registration number DRKS00017795.

Objective This study aims to evaluate the usage and implementation of video remote (VR) interpreting and telephone remote (TR) interpreting in primary healthcare settings.Design This publication forms part of a larger three-pronged study in which we compared both remote interpreting modalities to each other and to a control group. This paper conveys the findings of the qualitative evaluation of the implementation and usage of both remote interpreting solutions. The quantitative evaluation of the 6-month intervention period (September 2018–February 2019) has been reported previously. After this period, we conducted focus groups with the healthcare professionals involved. The focus groups were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the structured qualitative content analysis.Setting We provided either VR or TR tools to 10 different primary healthcare practices (general medicine, gynaecology and paediatrics) in the city of Hamburg, Germany.Participants Three physicians and two physician’s assistants took part in the TR focus group. The VR focus group consisted of four physicians.Results The main topics identified were the importance of communication for diagnostic and therapeutic processes, previous solutions to language barriers, as well as advantages and disadvantages of the two remote interpreting solutions. Advantages included the possibility to adequately communicate with language discordant patients and the high quality of the interpreting. Disadvantages included the habituation time required for new technology as well as time constraints.Conclusion Our evaluation found that these solutions were highly appreciated, if not considered indispensable, for the delivery of appropriate medical care to language-discordant patients. Differences between the two modalities were named and concrete suggestions for improvement were made. Policy-makers should consider providing VR or TR as an adequate and safe interpreting service alternative when professional in-person interpreters are not available or too expensive.

Introduction Older age is associated with multimorbidity, chronic diseases and acute deteriorations and leads to complex care needs. Nursing home residents are more often unnecessarily transferred to emergency departments or hospitals than community dwellers—largely due to a lack of qualified staff and diffusion of responsibility in the institutions. In Germany, only few academically trained nurses work in nursing homes, and their potential roles are unclear. Therefore, we aim to explore feasibility and potential effects of a newly defined role profile for nurses with bachelors’ degree or equivalent qualification in nursing homes.Methods and analysis A pilot study (Expand-Care) with a cluster-randomised controlled design will be conducted in 11 nursing homes (cluster) in Germany, with an allocation ratio of 5:6 to the intervention or control group, aiming to include 15 residents per cluster (165 participants in total). Nurses in the intervention group will receive training to perform role-related tasks such as case reviews and complex geriatric assessments. We will collect data at three time points (t0 baseline, t1 3 months and t2 6 months after randomisation). We will measure on residents’ level: hospital admissions, further health services use and quality of life; clinical outcomes (eg, symptom burden), physical functioning and delivery of care; mortality, adverse clinical incidents and changes in care level. On nurses’ level, we will measure perception of the new role profile, competencies and implementation of role-related tasks as part of the process evaluation (mixed methods). An economic evaluation will explore resource use on residents’ (healthcare utilisation) and on nurses’ level (costs and time expenditure).Ethics and dissemination The ethics committees of the University of Lübeck (Nr. 22-162) and the University Clinic Hamburg-Eppendorf (Nr. 2022-200452-BO-bet) approved the Expand-Care study. Informed consent is a prerequisite for participation. Study results will be published in open-access, peer-reviewed journals and reported at conferences and in local healthcare providers’ networks.Trial registration number DRKS00028708.

Abstract Background Somatic symptom disorder (SSD) is the successor diagnosis of somatoform disorder in the 5th Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Relevance and frequency of SSD and its clinical symptoms in general practice are still unknown. We estimate frequencies of patients fulfilling the diagnostic criteria of SSD in general practice. Methods Mailed and online survey with general practitioners (GP) in Germany using a cross-sectional representative sample from registries of statutory health insurance physicians. GPs estimated percentages of their patients who show the clinical symptoms of SSD according to DSM-5; that is, one or more burdensome somatic symptoms (A criterion), excessive symptom- or illness-related concern, anxiety, or behaviour (B criterion), and persistence of the symptoms over at least 6 months (C criterion). Statistical analysis used means and confidence intervals of estimated patient proportions showing SSD symptoms. Frequency of full-blown SSD was based on the products of these proportions calculated for each GP. Results Responses from 1728 GPs were obtained. GPs saw the clinical symptoms of SSD fulfilled (A and B criteria) in 21.5% (95% CI: 20.6 to 22.3) of their patients. They further estimated that in 24.3% (95% CI: 23.3 to 25.2) of patients, symptoms would persist, yielding a total of 7.7% (95% CI: 7.1 to 8.4) of patients to have a full-blown SSD. Conclusions We estimate a frequency of 7.7% of patients in general practice to fulfil the diagnostic criteria of SSD. This number may figure as a reference for the yet to be uncovered prevalence of SSD and it indicates a high clinical relevance of the clinical symptoms of SSD in general practice. Registration German Clinical Trials Register (Deutschen Register Klinischer Studien, DRKS). DRKS-ID: DRKS00012942. The date the study was registered: October 2nd 2017. The date the first participant was enrolled: February 9th 2018.

Abstract Background Patients with multiple long-term conditions often face a variety of challenges arising from the requirements of their health care. Knowledge of perceived treatment burden is crucial for optimizing treatment. In this study, we aimed to create a German version of the Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ) and to evaluate its validity. Methods The steps to translate the MTBQ included forward/back translation, cognitive interviews (n = 6) and a pilot test (n = 7). Psychometric properties of the scale were assessed in a cross-sectional survey with primary care patients aged 65 and older with at least 3 long-term conditions (n = 344). We examined the distribution of responses, dimensionality, internal reliability and construct validity. Results Cognitive interviewing and piloting led to minor modifications and showed overall good face validity and acceptability. As expected, we observed a positively skewed response distribution for all items. Reliability was acceptable with McDonald’s omega = 0.71. Factor analysis suggested one common factor while model fit indices were inconclusive. Predefined hypotheses regarding the construct validity were supported by negative associations between treatment burden and health-related quality of life, self-rated health, social support, patient activation and medication adherence, and positive associations between treatment burden and number of comorbidities. Treatment burden was found to be higher in female participants (Mdn 1 = 6.82, Mdn 2 = 4.55; U = 11,729, p = 0.001) and participants with mental health diagnoses (Mdn 1 = 9.10, Mdn 2 = 4.55; U = 3172, p = 0.024). Conclusions The German MTBQ exhibited good psychometric properties and can be used to assess the perceived treatment burden of patients with multimorbidity.

Low-threshold e-health approaches in prevention to reduce suicide stigma are scarce. We developed an online program containing video reports on lived experience of suicide and evidence-based information on suicidality. We evaluated the program by a mixed methods design. We examined pre-post-changes of program completers (n = 268) in suicide literacy, suicide stigma (self and perceived), and self-efficacy expectation of being able to seek support in psychologically difficult situations using linear mixed models. To examine reported changes and helpful program elements 12-26 weeks after program completion, we content analyzed transcripts of telephone interviews (n = 16). Program completers showed more suicide literacy (Cohen's d = .74; p < .001), higher self-efficacy expectations to seek support (d = .09; p < .01), lower self-stigma (subscales glorification/normalization: d = -.13, p = .04; isolation/depression: d = -.14; p = .04; stigma: d = -.10; p = .07; n = 168) compared to baseline. We found no significant differences in perceived suicide stigma. We identified lived experience reports, the possibility of sharing own narrative on stigma and suicidality, and information on support as helpful elements. The current online program can increase suicide literacy and self-efficacy expectations to seek support and reduce self-stigma. We recommend a larger randomized controlled trial with longer follow-up to confirm these findings.

Introduction Progressive chronic, non-malignant diseases (CNMD) like congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and dementia are of growing relevance in primary care. Most of these patients suffer from severe symptoms, reduced quality of life and increased numbers of hospitalisations. Outpatient palliative care can help to reduce hospitalisation rate by up to 50%. Due to the complex medical conditions and prognostic uncertainty of the course of CNMD, early interprofessional care planning among general practitioners who provide general palliative care and specialist palliative home care (SPHC) teams seems mandatory. The KOPAL study (a concept for strenghtening interprofessional collaboration for patients with palliative care needs) will test the effectiveness of a SPHC nurse–patient consultation followed by an interprofessional telephone case conference.Methods and analysis Multicentre two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial KOPAL with usual care as control arm. The study is located in Northern Germany and aims to recruit 616 patients in 56 GP practices (because of pandemic reasons reduced to 191 participants). Randomisation will take place on GP practice level immediately after inclusion (intervention group/control group). Allocation concealment is carried out on confirmation of participation. Patients diagnosed with CHF (New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification 3–4), COPD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stage classification 3–4, group D) or dementia GDS stage 4 or above). Primary outcome is a reduced hospital admission within 48 weeks after baseline, secondary outcomes include symptom burden, quality of life and health costs. The primary analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. Intervention will be evaluated after the observation period using qualitative methods.Ethics and dissemination The responsible ethics committees of the cooperating centres approved the study. All steps of data collection, quality assurance and data analysis will continuously be monitored. The concept of KOPAL could serve as a blueprint for other regions and meet the challenges of geographical equity in end-of-life care.Trial registration number DRKS00017795; German Clinical Trials Register.

Abstract Background Many patients consult their primary care physician with persistent somatic symptoms such as pain or sickness. Quite often these consultations and further diagnostic measures yield no medical explanation for the symptoms – patients and physicians are left in uncertainty. In fact, diagnostic and treatment barriers in primary care hinder timely health-care provision for patients suffering from persistent somatic symptoms (PSS). The significance of individual barriers is still unknown. We compare and quantify these barriers from the perspective of primary care physicians and identify subpopulations of primary care physicians who experience particular barriers as most severe. Methods We mailed a questionnaire to primary care physicians (PCP) in Germany and asked them which barriers they consider most important. We invited a random sample of 12,004 primary care physicians in eight federal states in Germany. Physicians provided anonymous mailed or online responses. We also mailed a postcard to announce the survey and a mail reminder. Main measures were Likert rating scales of items relating to barriers in the diagnosis and treatment of PSS in primary care. Information on demography and medical practice were also collected. Results We analyzed 1719 data sets from 1829 respondents. PCPs showed strongest agreement with statements regarding (1.) their lack of knowledge about treatment guidelines, (2.) their perceptions that patients with PSS would expect symptom relief, (3.) their concern to overlook physical disease in these patients, and (4.) their usage of psychotropic drugs with these patients. More experienced PCPs were better able to cope with the possibility of overlooking physical disease than those less experienced. Conclusions The PCPs in our survey answered that the obligation to rule out severe physical disease and the demand to relieve patients from symptoms belong to the most severe barriers for adequate treatment and diagnosis. Moreover, many physicians admitted to not knowing the appropriate treatment guidelines for these patients. Based on our results, raising awareness of guidelines and improving knowledge about the management of persistent somatic symptoms appear to be promising approaches for overcoming the barriers to diagnosis and treatment of persistent somatic symptoms in primary care. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register (Deutschen Register Klinischer Studien, DRKS) https://www.drks.de/drks_web/setLocale_EN.do The date the study was registered: October 2nd 2017 The date the first participant was enrolled: February 9th 2018 DRKS-ID: DRKS00012942

Background: Primary care plays a key role in pandemics like the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in 2020. We aimed to investigate the challenges faced and the solutions implemented in primary care.Methods: One hundred and twenty-one general practitioners in Germany completed the online survey. We used open questions to examine challenges experienced and solutions implemented during the early pandemic and chose qualitative content analysis to extract and describe the meaning of the answers. We derived deductive categories from the research questions and formed inductive categories during the material reviews.Results: Main challenges were: insufficient information, lack of protective equipment, need to restructure practice procedures and insufficient individual and structural pandemic preparedness, resulting in secondary challenges: fear of infection, impaired patient care, aggravated steering of patients, difficult cooperation with external entities and a not viable hygiene concept advised by authorities. Strategies to address these challenges included establishing regular team-meetings to develop new solutions, focusing on few reliable sources of information, working in alternating shifts, increasing telemedicine, establishing window and open-air practices and building networks with other health care providers. Respondents criticized the lack of consideration of their experiences in planning pandemic measures within primary care.Conclusions: General practitioners successfully applied pragmatic and creative strategies in their practices during the early phase of the pandemic. Among these, communication within and between practices emerged as a key strategy. These strategies should be provided with pandemic preparedness plans. The lacking consideration of the primary care providers' experiences in planning and implementing pandemic measures needs to be addressed by stakeholders.

Background Prevalence of people with multimorbidity rises. Multimorbidity constitutes a challenge to the healthcare system, and treatment of patients with multimorbidity is prone to high-quality variations. Currently, no set of quality indicators (QIs) exists to assess quality of care, let alone incorporating the patient perspective. We therefore aim to identify aspects of quality of care relevant to the patients’ perspective and match them to a literature-based set of QIs.Methods We conducted eight focus groups with patients with multimorbidity and three focus groups with patients’ relatives using a semistructured guide. Data were analysed using Kuckartz’s qualitative content analysis. We derived deductive categories from the literature, added inductive categories (new quality aspects) and translated them into QI.Results We created four new QIs based on the quality aspects relevant to patients/relatives. Two QIs (patient education/self-management, regular updates of medication plans) were consented by an expert panel, while two others were not (periodical check-ups, general practitioner-coordinated care). Half of the literature-based QIs, for example, assessment of biopsychosocial support needs, were supported by participants’ accounts, while more technical domains regarding assessment and treatment regimens were not addressed in the focus groups.Conclusion We show that focus groups with patients and relatives adding relevant aspects in QI development should be incorporated by default in QI development processes and constitute a reasonable addition to traditional QI development. Our QI set constitutes a framework for assessing the quality of care in the German healthcare system. It will facilitate implementation of treatment standards and increase the use of existing guidelines, hereby helping to reduce overuse, underuse and misuse of healthcare resources in the treatment of patients with multimorbidity.Trial registration number German clinical trials registry (DRKS00015718), Pre-Results.

Introduction Stroke is a frequent disease in the older population of Western Europe with aphasia as a common consequence. Aphasia is known to impede targeting treatment to individual patients’ needs and therefore may reduce treatment success. In Germany, the postacute care of patients who had stroke is provided by different healthcare institutions of different sectors (rehabilitation, nursing and primary care) with substantial difficulties to coordinate services. We will conduct two qualitative evidence syntheses (QESs) aiming at exploring distinct healthcare needs and desires of older people living with poststroke aphasia. We thereby hope to support the development of integrated care models based on needs of patients who are very restricted to communicate them. Since various methods of QESs exist, the aim of the study embedding the two QESs was to determine if findings differ according to the approach used.Methods and analysis We will conduct two QESs by using metaethnography (ME) and thematic synthesis (ThS) independently to synthesise the findings of primary qualitative studies. The main differences between these two methods are the underlying epistemologies (idealism (ME) vs realism (ThS)) and the type of research question (emerging (ME) vs fixed (ThS)).We will search seven bibliographical databases. Inclusion criteria comprise: patients with poststroke aphasia, aged 65 years and older, studies in German/English, all types of qualitative studies concerning needs and desires related to healthcare or the healthcare system. The protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines and includes three items from the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the synthesis of Qualitative Research checklist.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented on national conferences.

Objectives The aim of our study was to explore patient types in general practitioner (GP) practices and to quantify the regional differences of the frequencies of these patient types in northern Germany.Design and setting We conducted a mixed-methods study based on focus groups and standardised interviews with GPs. All counties and independent cities within a radius of 120 km around Hamburg were assigned one of three regional categories (urban areas, environs, rural areas). The focus groups were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Relative frequencies of consultations by patient types and differences between the regions were calculated. Logistic regression analyses were used to identify differences among regions.Participants Nine focus groups with 65 GPs (67.7% male). From the 280 initially recruited GPs 211 (65.4% male) could be personally interviewed.Results Four themes with 27 patient types were derived from the focus groups: patients classified by morbidity, sociodemographic characteristics, special care needs and patient behaviour. Five patient characteristics were significantly more prevalent in urban areas than rural areas: patients with migration background and culturally different disease concepts (OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.42), privately insured patients (OR 1.17; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.31), educationally disadvantaged patients with low health literacy (OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.19), patients with psychiatric disorders (OR 1.07; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.12) and senior citizens living on their own without caregivers (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.31). Three patient types were significantly less prevalent in urban areas: minors accompanied by their parents (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.83), patients with poor therapy adherence (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.95) and patients with dementia (OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.82 to 0.99).Conclusions GPs could compensate the specific needs of their patients with medical training aligned with the requirements of their region. Urban GPs need skills treating patients with psychiatric, social and cultural problems, rural GPs regarding the care for children or noncompliant patients.Trial registration number NCT02558322

Background: Treatment of depressive disorders in old age is hindered by several barriers. Most common are time pressure in primary care and latency for specialized therapeutic care. To improve treatment, the collaborative care approach GermanIMPACT was evaluated in a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Care managers offered a complex stepped-care intervention of monitoring, psychoeducation, and behavioral activation techniques. Twenty-six percent of the intervention group responds with a remission of depressive symptoms compared with 11% who received treatment as usual (TAU). The low-threshold intervention was more successful than TAU. Nevertheless, three-quarters did not respond with a remission. The aim of this study is to identify and describe the different types of utilization and of treatment response to understand what constitutes an effective intervention.Methods: Of 64 patients from the intervention group, we carried out problem-centered interviews with 26 patients from the intervention group. We analyzed the interviews using a qualitative type-building content analysis. For type construction, we performed a contrasting case comparison, regarding inductive and deductive categories of the intervention utilization and the symptom development.Results: The 26 participants' ages ranged from 62 to 87 years (mean = 72 years). Three participants were male. We identified five types of utilization, which differ primarily in the realization of pleasant activations, depending on own activity at the beginning and during the therapy: “activatable relief seekers,” “active relief seekers,” “active relaxation seekers,” “passive problem-solving seekers,” and “passive relief seekers.” In the second typology, we analyzed four deductively determined types of treatment response responders, slight improvers, constant moderates, and non-responders. Patient-specific characteristics are a recent history of depression, an affinity for activities, supportive contacts, and limited comorbidity. In contrast, non-responders report contrary characteristics.Conclusion: Our two typologies emphasize that an effective intervention requires a match between intervention components and patient characteristics. We saw no intersections between utilization and treatment response. GermanIMPACT is an effective low-threshold intervention for moderately burdened patients, who are still capable of self-activation. An expansion of the intervention, especially for depression with a long history and comorbidities impairing mobility, could increase the effectiveness and improve the care situation of older people suffering from depression.

Abstract Background Oldest-old persons frequently receive potentially inappropriate medication. Medication use takes place under the patients’ informal caregivers’ influence. We explored informal caregivers’ perspectives on medication of (relatively) independent oldest-old persons to identify starting points for safer medication prescription/handling. Methods In this exploratory qualitative interview study we interviewed 45 informal caregivers of 45 oldest-old persons (23 with potentially inappropriate medication/22 without potentially inappropriate medication). Interviews were recorded, transcribed and content analyzed (deductive/inductive coding). Results Interviewees had little knowledge about/influence on oldest-old persons’ medication, but declared to monitor oldest-old persons’ needs for assistance. They were unaware of the concept of potentially inappropriate medication but sometimes sensitive to substance dependency. Most informal caregivers were satisfied with the oldest-old persons’ medication and viewed medication as increasing the patients’ quality of life. Inadequate communication was found between informal caregivers and general practitioners. Conclusions Influence of informal caregivers on (relatively) independent oldest-old persons’ medication seems low. Stakeholders need to be aware that there is a transitional period where independency of oldest-old persons decreases and support needs increase which may be missed by (in-)formal caregivers or concealed by oldest-old persons. Monitoring patients’ medication competencies; measures supporting communication between informal caregivers and health care professionals; provision of educational and support resources for informal caregivers and the acceptance of oldest-old persons’ increasing assistance needs may increase medication safety.

Abstract Background Dementia is an irreversible chronic disease with wide-ranging effects on patients’, caregivers’ and families’ lives. Hospitalizations are significant events for people with dementia. They tend to have poorer outcomes compared to those without dementia. Most of the previous studies focused on diagnoses leading to hospitalizations using claims data. Further factors (e.g. context factors) for hospitalizations are not reproduced in this data. Therefore, we investigated the factors leading to hospitalization with an explorative, qualitative study design. Methods We interviewed informal caregivers (N = 12), general practitioners (GPs, N = 12) and formal caregivers (N = 5) of 12 persons with dementia using a semi-structured interview guideline. The persons with dementia were sampled using criteria regarding their living situation (home care vs. nursing home care) and gender. The transcripts were analyzed using the method of structuring content analysis. Results Almost none of the hospitalizations, discussed with the (in-)formal caregivers and GPs, seemed to have been preventable or seemed unjustifiable from the interviewees’ points of view. We identified several dementia-specific factors promoting hospitalizations (e.g. the neglect of constricted mobility, the declining ability to communicate about symptoms/accidents and the shift of responsibility from person with dementia to informal or formal caregivers) and context-specific factors promoting hospitalizations (e.g. qualification of nursing home personal, the non-availability of the GP and hospitalizations for examinations/treatments also available in ambulatory settings). Hospitalizations were always the result of the interrelation of two factors: illnesses/accidents and context factors. The impact of both seems to be stronger in presence of dementia. Conclusions Points for action in terms of reducing hospitalization rates were: better qualified nurses, a 24-h-GP-emergency service and better compensation for ambulatory monitoring/treatments and house calls. Many hospitalizations of people with dementia cannot be prevented. Therefore, hospital staffs need to be better prepared to handle patients with dementia in order to reduce the negative effects of hospitalizations.

Although potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) is associated with risk of harm due to adverse effects, it is frequently prescribed for elderly patients. The aim of this qualitative multi-center study was to gain insight into contextual factors that might lead to chronic PIM use. We conducted semi-structured interviews with elderly patients with or without chronic PIM use (patient interviews: n = 52). Patients were between 86 and 96 years old. The participants were recruited from the AgeCoDe study. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts of the interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Deductive and inductive categories were determined. We found contextual factors related to the patient and related to patient-general practitioner (GP) communication that might lead to chronic PIM use (i.e., positive features of PIM, maintaining characteristics of medication intake, barriers to deprescribe PIM, external actors supporting PIM intake, system-related factors). Besides certain health-related behaviours (e.g., own obligation to report to GP) and medication-related attitudes and knowledge (e.g., awareness of side effects and interaction of medicines), patient-GP-interactions that were characterised by mutual agreements on drugs (e.g., concerning dosage or discontinuation of a drug) might be advantageous to reduce the probability of chronic PIM use. The results might assist in the development of guidelines and educational programs aiming to reduce PIM use in the elderly.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes mellitus is highly prevalent and can lead to serious complications and mortality. Patient education can help to avoid negative outcomes, but up to half of the patients do not participate. The aim of this study was to analyze patients' attitudes towards diabetes education in order to identify barriers to participation and develop strategies for better patient education. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study. Seven GP practices were purposively selected based on socio-demographic data of city districts in Hamburg, Germany. Study participants were selected by their GPs in order to increase participation. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with 14 patients. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. The sample size was determined by data saturation. Data were analysed by qualitative content analysis. Categories were determined deductively and inductively. RESULTS: The interviews yielded four types of barriers: 1) Statements and behaviour of the attending physician influence the patients' decisions about diabetes education. 2) Both, a good state of health related to diabetes and physical/psychosocial comorbidity can be reasons for non-participation. 3) Manifold motivational factors were discussed. They ranged from giving low priority to diabetes to avoidance of implications of diabetes education as being confronted with illness narratives of others. 4) Barriers also include aspects of the patients' knowledge and activity. CONCLUSIONS: First, physicians should encourage patients to participate in diabetes education and argue that they can profit even if actual treatment and examination results are promising. Second, patients with other priorities, psychic comorbidity or functional limitations might profit more from continuous individualized education adapted to their specific situation instead of group education. Third, it might be justified that patients do not participate in diabetes education if they have slightly increased blood sugar values only and no risk for harmful consequences or if they already have sufficient knowledge on diabetes.