Search

Background/objective: Since 2024, according to the guidelines on the treatment of proximal femoral fractures of the German Joint Federal Committee (QSFFx-RL), the geriatric qualification of physicians is the new quality standard for the daily guarantee of geriatric competence in the care of fractures near the hip joint in hospitals. The article examines whether there are enough physicians qualified in geriatrics available to implement this quality standard in practice., Material and Methods: The data were based on physician statistics, quality assurance procedures and hospital billing records. The available geriatric competence was determined on the basis of physicians with the required geriatric qualifications and potential orthogeriatric cooperation partners, hospital locations with guideline cases using the main diagnoses and procedures., Results: The total increase in the number of physicians qualified in geriatrics for 2023 can be estimated at around 4800 (of whom 2700 are active in inpatient and 1700 in outpatient fields). In 2022 there were 1005 hospital locations with > 20 guideline cases, 55% of which also offered geriatric services. A total of 908 geriatric locations (hospital/rehabilitation) and 1476 contract doctors were identified as potential cooperation partners. Only 4.6% of hospital locations with > 20 guideline cases did not have a potential geriatric location within a distance radius of ≤ 20 km., Discussion: The number of physicians qualified in geriatrics and potential geriatric cooperation partners, the long transition period, already established local geriatric care services and the possibility of using telemedicine support the feasibility of implementing the new quality standard; however, the planned exclusion of geriatric consultations on request starting in 2027 will require even more physicians qualified in geriatrics., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Background: Preventive home visits (PHV) document health resources and risks in the domestic environment in order to derive preventive recommendations. An earlier review did not yield reliable proof of their efficacy for the elderly; however, PHV are used increasingly more as a municipal service in Germany., Objective: This article evaluates the efficacy of PHV by means of evidence-based criteria., Material and Methods: Independent of the reason, randomized controlled studies (RCT) and systematic reviews on PHV in the elderly (60+ years) that were published after 2004 were identified by means of searching pertinent literature databases. The outcomes evaluated were mortality, hospitalization, admission to nursing home, functional status, falls and quality of life., Results: The 12 RCT included (for the first time including a German trial) showed a high clinical heterogeneity, good methodological quality and only few bias potentials. As few as 6 out of the 12 RCT showed positive effects for individual outcomes, rarely exceeding the period of the intervention and partly limited to individual subgroups; however, almost no negative effects were reported. The four review articles included did not show any reliable proof of efficacy of PHV regarding any of the evaluated outcomes either., Conclusion: In the current literature no clear proof of the efficacy of PHV could be identified. No structure or process features having an efficacy regarding several outcomes could be derived either. Thus, the current use of PHV is still being made without any clear evidence of efficacy.

Background: Insurants have a statutory right to mobile rehabilitation in which a multidisciplinary team carries out treatment in the familiar home environment. Framework recommendations in geriatric medicine were presented by the statutory health insurance (SHI) and a standardized treatment documentation was implemented nationwide., Objective: This article presents the conceptual design and selected results from this treatment documentation and reports on the established practice., Material and Methods: A total of 1879 anonymized cases of mobile geriatric rehabilitation carried out between 2011 and 2014 from 11 participating institutions were analyzed with respect to patient and process-related features., Results: The patients were on average 81 years old and 61 % were female. The mobile rehabilitation was provided on average over 22 treatment days over a period of 8 weeks and in 84 % of cases following hospital treatment. Of the rehabilitation patients 27 % lived in a care home prior to treatment and 73 % were already allocated to a care level. The statistically significant gain in capacity for self-sufficiency was 18 points on the Barthel index at the end of the rehabilitation. The majority of treatment was provided by physiotherapists and occupational therapists followed by speech therapists and nursing personnel. Relevant differences were detected between the institutions regarding the indications, access route, therapy combinations, treatment frequency, scope and duration. At the same time individual requirements from the framework recommendations were sometimes not met., Conclusion: Even though the treatment documentation does not replace any external mobile rehabilitation quality assurance, it provides transparency in a still very limited range of services that are sometimes differently implemented at institutions. It therefore provides the basis for further development of mobile out-patient rehabilitation in SHI.

The Barthel Index (BI) is firmly established as an assessment instrument in geriatrics. It is a proven, clear and easy-to-use instrument for the recording of basic daily functions. However it is increasingly finding new applications beyond its original, clinically orientated use. It has been applied as a quality parameter, as an instrument for the management of service delivery provision and as an instrument to record treatment efforts relevant to care or costs. This study considers the basic suitability prerequisites of the Barthel Index for these applications.With the Hamburg Classification Manual for the BI, German geriatrics has made a contribution to the standardized operationalization of the items and to the standardized evaluation of aids. An evaluation was performed on a total of 5262 Barthel classifications at seven geriatric hospitals according to existing classification practice by comparison with 5483 classifications after introduction of the Hamburg Classification Manual. No significant differences were found in Barthel Index total scores either on admission or on discharge. With respect to further applications it is essential to be aware that the usability of the total score (including its changes over the course of time) is limited because of the ordinal scaling of the BI. Studies have been carried out which show how important this is, although they have so far received little attention. As a grading criterion the BI takes account not only of the "functional status" but also of the "extent of support effort". This can lead to positive changes in one focus -- especially with the use of aids -- without associated improvements in the other focus. Whether the BI in this form is meaningful for a specific application must be tested separately for each individual context. There is no justification for assuming that the BI has general validity irrespective of application. The results of a systematic literature survey on the testing quality criteria of the BI indicate an astonishingly generous approach to the question of the validity of the BI. Contrary to widespread opinion, cognitive-psychological components do influence the classification result of the BI. As an addition to the Hamburg Classification Manual we recommend that the extent of this influencing factor should also be more clearly operationalized and that "stimulation required" for the carrying out of an activity be included in the evaluation equivalent to the factor "supervision required" already introduced by Barthel and Mahoney. The BI has shown itself to be an efficient but nonetheless multidimensional global parameter in clinical practice, whose meaningfulness is on the level of the individual item and whose validity, particularly as total score and course parameter, needs to be proven for each new application. The Hamburg Classification Manual, as a standardized and consensus-based operationalization of the BI, provides an important basis for this.