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.

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.

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

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.