Search

Abstract Introduction The VESPEERA programme is a multifaceted programme to enhance information transfer between general practice and hospital across the process of hospital admission, stay and discharge. It was implemented in 7 hospitals and 72 general practices in Southern Germany. Uptake was heterogeneous and overall low. A process evaluation aimed at identifying factors associated with the implementation of the VESPEERA programme. Methods This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews in a purposeful sample of health workers in hospitals and general practices in the VESPEERA programme. Qualitative framework analysis using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was performed and revealed the topic of previous and new routines to be protruding. Inductive content analysis was used for in-depth examination of stages in the process of staying in a previous or falling into a new routines. Results Thirty-six interviews were conducted with 17 participants from general practices and 19 participants from hospitals. The interviewees were in different stages of the implementation process at the time of the interviews. Four stages were identified: Stage 1,’Previous routine and tension for change’, describes the situation in which VESPEERA was to be implemented and the factors leading to the decision to participate. In stage 2,’Adoption of the VESPEERA programme’, factors that influenced whether individuals decided to employ the innovation are relevant. Stage 3 comprises ‘Determinants for falling into and staying in the new VESPEERA-routine’ relates to actual implementation and finally, in stage 4, the participants reflect on the success of the implementation. Conclusions The individuals and organisations participating in the VESPEERA programme were in different stages of a process from the previous to the new routine, which were characterised by different determinants of implementation. In all stages, organisational factors were main determinants of implementation, but different factors emerged in different implementation stages. A low distinction between decision-making power and executive, as well as available resources, were beneficial for the implementation of the innovation. Trial registration DRKS00015183 on DRKS / Universal Trial Number (UTN): U1111-1218–0992.

Abstract Background High continuity of care has a positive impact on health outcomes, but insight into the mechanisms underlying this impact is limited. Information continuity, on which our study focuses, is especially important when relational continuity is not given, which is often the case at hospital admission or hospital discharge. The aim of this study is to provide insight into the information flows between general practices and hospitals in Germany, and to identify factors associated with these flows of information. Methods This is a qualitative interview study in a purposeful sample of staff from hospitals and general practices (general practitioners, care assistants in general practice, hospital management, hospital physicians, and nursing staff). Interviews were conducted via telephone or face-to-face using a self-developed semi-structured interview guide. Stepwise systematic content analysis was used to structure collected material into themes and sub-themes that related to the study aim. Data was analysed by two researchers in several cycles, alternating between inductive and deductive approaches. Results A total of 49 interviews were conducted. Duration of the interviews varies between 21 and 78 min (mean duration 43 min). Across all groups, more than two thirds of participants were female (n = 34, 69%). The analysis highlighted six interdependent main themes regarding factors that affect information flows between hospitals and general practices: organisational, legal, financial, patient factors, individual characteristics, and emotional & social factors. The latter theme emerged as particularly rich and was therefore divided into four subthemes: appreciation and understanding of the respective other, (intrinsic) motivation, socialisation, and relationships. Organised meetings and events were mentioned as strategies to address emotional and social factors. Conclusions Digitalisation can facilitate information flows between care providers. However, knowing each other and good personal relations remain important for effective collaboration. Cooperation between all stakeholders is needed to aim to achieve continuity of care. Trial registration: DRKS00015183 on DRKS/ Universal Trial Number (UTN): U1111-1218–0992. Date of registration 23/08/2018.

Abstract Background Despite increasing digitalisation the paper-based medication list remains one of the most important instruments for the documentation and exchange of medication-related information. However, even elderly patients with polypharmacy who are at high risk for medication errors and adverse drug events, frequently do not receive or use a complete and comprehensible medication list. Increasing the use of medication lists would be a great contribution to medication safety and facilitate the work of health care providers. Methods This study is related to the project MeinPlan (MyPlan) which comprised an information campaign on safe drug administration in the Rhine-Neckar region in South Germany. The campaign was evaluated in a before-and-after study based on a survey among two independent, representative samples of citizens over 65 years. In total, 5034 questionnaires were analysed. While the effects of the primary outcome (the percentage of citizens using a medication list) have been reported elsewhere, this analysis focusses on the effects of the campaign on citizens’ medication beliefs and assesses whether medication beliefs are associated with the use of medication lists, the use of over-the-counter drugs and the use of the tools offered by the campaign. Medication beliefs were assessed with the German version of the General Beliefs About Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ) which results in subscales for “General Overuse”, “General Usefulness” and “General Harm”. The use of medication lists and over-the-counter drugs was assessed with self-developed questionnaire items. Results No statistically significant change in citizens’ medication beliefs before and after the campaign could be detected. Likewise, no association between medication beliefs and the use of medication lists, the use of over-the-counter drugs or the use of the tools offered by the campaign could be shown. Conclusions A campaign focussing on the risks of drug administration did not change the medication beliefs of the targeted population. Moreover, citizens’ general medication beliefs do not seem to be crucial for their decision to use a medication list or over-the-counter drugs. Strategies to improve the use of medication lists by patients should focus on other influential factors, such as individual benefits and barriers and socio-psychological factors.

Introduction: In the context of a GP-based care programme, we implemented an admission, discharge and follow-up programme. Description: The VESPEERA programme consists of three sets of components: pre-admission interventions, in-hospital interventions and post-discharge interventions. It was aimed at all patients with a hospital stay participating in the GP-based care programme and was implemented in 7 hospitals and 72 general practices in southwest Germany using a range of strategies. Its’ effectiveness was evaluated using readmissions within 90 days after discharge as primary outcome. Questionnaires with staff were used to explore the implementation process. Discussion: A statistically significant effect was not found, but the effect size was similar to other interventions. Intervention fidelity was low and contextual factors affecting the implementation, amongst others, were available resources, external requirements such as legal regulations and networking between care providers. Lessons learned were derived that can aid to inform future political or scientific initiatives. Conclusion: Structured information transfer at hospital admission and discharge makes sense but the added value in the context of a GP-based programme seems modest. Primary care teams should be involved in pre- and post-hospital care. Abstrakt Einleitung: Im Rahmen der hausarztzentrierten Versorgung wurde ein Programm zur Verbesserung von Krankenhausaufnahmen und -entlassungen sowie der Nachsorge implementiert. Beschreibung: Das VESPEERA-Programm bestand aus verschiedenen Komponenten, die vor der Aufnahme, während des Krankenhausaufenthalts sowie nach der Entlassung durchgeführt wurden. Das Programm richtete sich an alle Patienten mit einem Krankenhausaufenthalt, die an der hausarztzentrierten Versorgung teilnahmen und wurde in 7 Krankenhäusern und 72 Hausarztpraxen in Südwestdeutschland unter Anwendung einer Reihe von Strategien implementiert. Seine Wirksamkeit wurde anhand des primären Endpunkts “Rehospitalisierungen innerhalb von 90 Tagen nach der Entlassung” bewertet. Anhand einer Fragebogenbefragung beim Personal wurde der Implementierungsprozess untersucht. Diskussion: Ein statistisch signifikanter Effekt konnte nicht gefunden werden, die Effektgröße war jedoch ähnlich wie bei anderen Interventionen. Die Interventionstreue war gering. Kontextfaktoren, die die Implementierung beeinflussten, waren unter anderem verfügbare Ressourcen, externe Anforderungen wie gesetzliche Vorschriften und die Vernetzung von Leistungserbringern. Es wurden Schlussfolgerungen gezogen, die für künftige politische oder wissenschaftliche Initiativen hilfreich sein können. Schlussfolgerung: Eine strukturierte Informationsweitergabe bei der Aufnahme und Entlassung aus dem Krankenhaus ist sinnvoll, doch scheint der zusätzliche Nutzen im Rahmen der hausarztzentrierten Versorgung begrenzt. Teams der Primärversorgung sollten in die prä- und poststationäre Versorgung einbezogen werden. Schlagwörter: Übergänge in der Versorgung; Einweisungsmanagement; Nachsorge nach Entlassung; Krankenhauswiederaufnahmen; Versorgungskontinuität; starke Primärversorgung; integrierte Versorgung

Abstract Background Strategies to improve the care of elderly, multimorbid patients frequently focus on implementing evidence-based knowledge by structured assessments and standardization of care. In Germany, disease management programs (DMPs), for example, are run by general practitioners (GPs) for this purpose. While the importance of such measures is undeniable, there is a risk of ignoring other dimensions of care which are essential, especially for elderly patients: their spiritual needs and personal resources, loneliness and social integration, and self-care (i.e., the ability of patients to do something on their own except taking medications to increase their well-being). The aim of this study is to explore whether combining DMPs with interventions to address these dimensions is feasible and has any impact on relevant outcomes in elderly patients with polypharmacy. Methods An explorative, cluster-randomized controlled trial with general practices as the unit of randomization will be conducted and accompanied by a process evaluation. Patients aged 70 years or older with at least three chronic conditions receiving at least three medications participating in at least one DMP will be included. The control group will receive DMP as usual. In the intervention group, GPs will conduct a spiritual needs assessment during the routinely planned DMP appointments and explore whether the patient has a need for more social contact or self-care. To enable GPs to react to such needs, several aids will be provided by the study: a) training of GPs in spiritual needs assessment and training of medical assistants in patient counseling regarding self-care and social activity; b) access to a summary of regional social offers for seniors; and c) information leaflets on nonpharmacological interventions (e.g., home remedies) to be applied by patients themselves to reduce frequent symptoms in old age. The primary outcome is health-related self-efficacy (using the Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease 6-Item Scale (SES-6G)). Secondary outcomes are general self-efficacy (using the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES)), physical and mental health (using the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12)), patient activation (using the Patient Activation Measure (PAM)), medication adherence (using the Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS)), beliefs in medicine (using the Beliefs About Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ)), satisfaction with GP care (using selected items of the European Project on Patient Evaluation of General Practice (EUROPEP)), social contacts (using the 6-item Lubben Social Network Scale (LSNS-6)), and loneliness (using the 11-item De-Jong-Gierveld Loneliness Scale (DJGS-11)). Interviews will be conducted to assess the mechanisms, feasibility, and acceptability of the interventions. Discussion If the interventions prove to be effective and feasible, large-scale implementation should be sought and evaluated by a confirmatory design. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), DRKS00015696. Registered on 22 January 2019.

Abstract Background Hospitalisations are a critical event in the care process. Insufficient communication and uncoordinated follow-up care often impede the recovery process of the patient resulting in a high number of rehospitalisations and increased health care costs. The overall aim of this study is the development, implementation and evaluation of a structured programme (VESPEERA) to improve the admission and discharge process. Methods We will conduct an open quasi-experimental multi-centre study with four intervention arms. A cohort selected from insurance claims data will serve as a control group reflecting usual care. The intervention will be implemented in 25 hospital departments and 115 general practices in 9 districts in Baden-Wurttemberg. Eligibility criteria for patients are: age > 18 years, hospital admission or hospitalisation, insurance at the sickness fund “AOK Baden-Wurttemberg”, enrolment in general practice-centred care contract. Each study arm will receive different intervention components based on the point of study enrolment and the patient’s medical need. The interventions comprise a) a structured assessment in the general practice prior to admission resulting in an admission letter b) a discharge conversation by phone between hospital and general practice, c) a structured assessment and care plan post-discharge and d) telephone monitoring for patients with a high risk of rehospitalisation. The assessments are supported by a software tool (“CareCockpit”), originally developed for structured case management programmes. The primary outcome (rehospitalisation due to the same indication within 90 days) and a range of secondary outcomes (rehospitalisation due to the same indication within 30 days; hospitalisations due to ambulatory care-sensitive conditions; delayed prescription of medication and medical products/ devices and referral to other health practitioner/s after discharge; utilisation of emergency or rescue services within 3 months; average care cost per year and patient participating in the VESPEERA programme) and quality indicators will be determined based on insurance claims data and CareCockpit data. Additionally, a patient survey on satisfaction with cross-sectoral care and health related quality of life will be conducted. Discussion Based on the results, area-wide implementation in usual care is well sought. This study will contribute to an improvement of cross-sectoral care during the admission and discharge process. Trial registration DRKS00014294 on DRKS / Universal Trial Number (UTN): U1111–1210-9657, Date of registration 12/06/2018.

Abstract Background The provision of high-quality medical care to asylum seekers represents a key challenge in many countries of the European Union. Especially continuity of care has been difficult to achieve as the migrant trajectory moves asylum seekers across and within European countries. Patient-held personal health records (PHR) have been proposed to facilitate the transfer of medical history between health sectors and providers, but so far there is no data to support its use in the migrant setting. The present paper addresses this knowledge gap by exploring the experiences and practices of healthcare providers in reception centers for asylum seekers using a patient-held PHR as well as the perceived associated benefits and shortcomings. Methods Early evaluation by means of a multi-sited qualitative study in six asylum seeker reception centers in five cities in the German state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, conducted between November 2016 and January 2017. The PHR evaluated in this study was implemented in five of these reception centers between February and October 2016; the remaining one only receiving patients with the PHR through transfer from the other facilities. 17 interviews were conducted with physicians and nurses working at these reception centers exploring their experiences, routines, and perspectives regarding the patient-held PHR. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed following the approach of thematic analysis. Results Healthcare providers recognise the potential of a patient-held PHR to improve access to medical history. They use the PHR to document their medical consultations and to collect other medical reports. However, physician adherence to the patient-held PHR was described as unsatisfactory, in particular among external doctors, thus limiting its immediate benefit. Reasons given for this low adherence included lack of information before implementation, demanding working conditions with little support, low perceived benefits depending on the degree of fragmentation of settings, parallel existence of other documentation platforms and strained patient relationships. Conclusion A patient-held PHR could improve the availability of health-related information in reception centers if a context-sensitive implementation process achieves high adherence to the PHR among physicians as well as high patient compliance and includes guidelines regarding its adequate integration into local routines.

Introduction Hospital stays are critical events as they often disrupt continuity of care. This process evaluation aims to describe and explore the implementation of the VESPEERA programme (Improving continuity of patient care across sectors: An admission and discharge model in general practices and hospitals, Versorgungskontinuitaet sichern: Patientenorientiertes Einweisungs- und Entlassmanagement in Hausarztpraxen und Krankenhauesern). The evaluation concerns the intervention fidelity, reach in targeted populations, perceived effects, working mechanisms, feasibility, determinants for implementation, including contextual factors, and associations with the outcomes evaluation. The aim of the VESPEERA programme is the development, implementation and evaluation of a structured admission and discharge programme in general practices and hospitals.Methods and analysis The process evaluation is linked to the VESPEERA outcomes evaluation, which has a quasi-experimental multi-centre design with four study arms and is conducted in hospitals and general practices in Germany. The VESPEERA programme comprises several components: an assessment before admission, an admission letter, a telephonic discharge conversation between hospital and general practice before discharge, discharge information for patients, structured planning of follow-up care after discharge in the general practice and a telephone monitoring for patients with a risk of rehospitalisation. The process evaluation has a mixed-methods design, incorporating interviews (patients, both care providers who do and do not participate in the VESPEERA programme, total n=75), questionnaires (patients and care providers who participate in the VESPEERA programme, total n=475), implementation plans of hospitals, data documented in general practices, claims-based data and hospital process data. Data analysis is descriptive and explorative. Qualitative data will be transcribed and analysed using framework analysis based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Associations between the outcomes of the program and measures in the process evaluation will be explored in regression models.Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval has been obtained by the ethics committee of the Medical Faculty Heidelberg prior to the start of the study (S-352/2018). Results will be disseminated through a final report to the funding agency, articles in peer-reviewed journals and conferences.Trial registration number http://www.drks.de/DRKS00015183.Trial status The study protocol on hand is the protocol V.1.1 from 18 June 2018. Recruitment for interviews started on 3 September 2018 and will approximately be completed by the end of May 2019.

Introduction The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a patient-held health record (PHR) for asylum seekers on the availability of health-related information.Methods An explorative, cluster-randomised stepped-wedge trial with reception centres as unit of randomisation was conducted. All reception centres (n=6) in two large administrative areas in South Germany with on-site health services were included. All physicians working at these centres were invited to participate in the study. The intervention was the implementation of a PHR. The primary outcome was the prevalence of written health-related information. Secondary outcomes were the physicians’ dissatisfaction with the available written information and the prevalence of missing health-related information. All outcomes were measured at the level of patient–physician contacts by means of a standardised questionnaire, and analysed in logistic multi-level regression models.Results We obtained data on 2308 patient–physician contacts. The presence of the PHR increased the availability of health-related information (adjusted OR (aOR), 20.3, 95% CI: 12.74 to 32.33), and tended to reduce missing essential information (aOR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.39 to 1.26) and physicians’ dissatisfaction with available information (aOR 0.5, 95% CI: 0.24 to 1.04). The availability of health-related information in the post-intervention period was higher (aOR 4.22, 95% CI: 2.64 to 6.73), missing information (aOR 0.89, 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.88) and dissatisfaction (aOR 0.43, 95% CI: 0.16 to 1.14) tended to be lower compared with the pre-intervention period.Conclusions Healthcare planners should consider introducing PHRs in reception centres or comparable facilities. Future research should focus on the impact of PHRs on clinical outcomes and on intersectoral care.Trial registration ISRCTN13212716. Registered 24 November 2016. Retrospectively registered. http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13212716