Search

Background With demographic change, the number of noncommunicable diseases, chronic diseases and multimorbidity is increasing, and so is the demand for health services. This represents a further challenge for the healthcare system. An adequate and efficient treatment of multimorbid patients requires a well-structured, informed and cross-indicated treatment. Therefore, a new form of coordinated, managed and cross-sectoral care for multimorbid patients - the “MamBo” care model - has been developed. Along with the implementation of MamBo, a process and outcome evaluation will be carried out, which is described in this study protocol. The aim of the study is to evaluate the care model according to its implementation process and effectiveness. Methods The MamBo-care model will be evaluated in multi-perspective terms. Thus, a process and outcome evaluation with several data sources will be conducted: (1) Annual focus groups and individual interviews with those involved in the process. (2) Various primary data, including surveys of patients, physicians and practice staff at the time of enrolment and 1 year later to enable pre-post comparison. (3) Claim data from the health insurance of the MamBo population in comparison to a comparative population, formed by the propensity score matching method. (4) Process data of the care management. The analysis of qualitative data will be carried out by content analysis according to Mayring. For the analysis of the quantitative data, multivariate analyses are planned. Discussion A new form of coordinated care has been introduced to improve intersectoral care of multimorbid patients and reduce the workload on physicians. The effects of the MamBo care model are being investigated for patients, physicians and the cost units. The results will form the basis for the decision whether the care model should be transferred to standard care and what needs to be taken into account for implementation. Trial registration The study was retrospectively registered in the German Register for Clinical Studies (DRKS00014047) on June 28, 2019.

Background To investigate patients’ perspectives on polypharmacy and the use of a digital decision support system to assist general practitioners (GPs) in performing medication reviews. Methods Qualitative interviews with patients or informal caregivers recruited from participants in a cluster-randomized controlled clinical trial (cRCT). The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results We conducted 13 interviews and identified the following seven themes: the patients successfully integrated medication use in their everyday lives, used medication plans, had both good and bad personal experiences with their drugs, regarded their healthcare providers as the main source of medication-related information, discussed medication changes with their GPs, had trusting relationships with them, and viewed the use of digital decision support tools for medication reviews positively. No unwanted adverse effects were reported. Conclusions Despite drug-related problems, patients appeared to cope well with their medications. They also trusted their GPs, despite acknowledging polypharmacy to be a complex field for them. The use of a digital support system was appreciated and linked to the hope that reasons for selecting specific medication regimens would become more comprehensible. Further research with a more diverse sampling might add more patient perspectives. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03430336. Registered on February 6, 2018. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-021-01517-6.

Background The health care innovation "MamBo – people with multimorbidity in outpatient care: patient-focused and needs-oriented healthcare management” aims to improve the efficiency and quality of care for multimorbid patients by delegating tasks (e.g. taking over house calls or coordinating specialist appointments) to a monitoring and coordination assistant (MoniKa). Participating physicians are very important for the success of the health care innovation due to their direct involvement as practitioners and their task of enrolling patients. The aim of this part of the evaluation study is therefore to identify the physician’s personal values, which influence the individual perception of the project’s advantages and thus possibly the acceptance and sustainable implementation of new care structures. Methods Two Focus groups (n = 4; n = 6) and three individual interviews with general practitioners and specialists who decided to implement the health care innovation within the first year were conducted. The semi-structured guidelines were developed by the research team. The interviews were analysed according to the content analysis by Mayring. We used the learning model of operant conditioning to place our study results in a theoretical context. Result Two central personal values of the participants, which determine the desired advantages of the health care innovation were identified: More patient-oriented and more economic-oriented values. Participants with more patient-oriented values quickly perceived advantages, which seems to be beneficial for the acceptance of the new care structures. Economic-oriented participants tended to be more critical. The benefits of the health care innovation, which was expressed, for example, in an improvement of the practice routine, has not yet been perceived by this group, or only to a limited extent. Conclusion The results suggest that the respective values of the participants define the individual perceived advantages and thus, the assessment of the success of the health care innovation in general. These findings could be used in the implementation process by increasing the motivation of the project participants through typified supervision. Trial registration: The study has been registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00014047).

ObjectiveFormative evaluation of the implementation process for a digitally supported intervention in polypharmacy in Germany. Qualitative research was conducted within a cluster randomized controlled trial (C-RCT). It focused on understanding how the intervention influences behavior-related outcomes in the prescription and medication review process.Methods/settingTwenty-seven general practitioners (GPs) were included in the study in the two groups of the C-RCT, the intervention, and the wait list control group. Behavior-related outcomes were investigated using three-step data analysis (content analytic approach, documentary method, and design of a model of implementation pathways).ResultsContent analysis showed that physicians were more intensely aware of polypharmacy-related risks, described positive learning effects of the digital technology on their prescribing behavior, and perceived a change in communication with patients and pharmacists. Conversely, they felt uncertain about their own responsibility when prescribing. Three main dimensions were discovered which influenced adoption behavior: (1) the physicians’ interpretation of the relevance of pharmaceutical knowledge provided by the intervention in changing decision-making situations in polypharmacy; (2) their medical code of ethics for clinical decision making in the context of progressing digitalization; and (3) their concepts of evidence-based medicine on the basis of professional experiences with polypharmacy in primary care settings. In our sample, both simple and complex pathways from sensitization to adoption were observed. The resulting model on adoption behavior includes a paradigmatic description of different pathways and a visualization of different observed levels and applied methodological approaches. We assumed that the GP habitus can weaken or strengthen interventional effects towards intervention uptake. This formative evaluation strategy is beneficial for the identification of behavior-related implementation barriers and facilitators.ConclusionOur analyses of the adoption behavior of a digitally supported intervention in polypharmacy revealed both simple and complex pathways from awareness to adoption, which may impact the implementation of the intervention and therefore, its effectiveness. Future consideration of adoption behavior in the planning and evaluation of digitally supported interventions may enhance uptake and support the interpretation of effects.Trial registrationNCT03430336, 12 February 2018.

ObjectivesPrevious studies on patient-centred care (PCC) and its facilitators and barriers usually considered specific patient groups, healthcare settings and aspects of PCC or focused on expert perspectives. The objective of this study was to analyse patients’ perspectives of facilitators and barriers towards implementing PCC.DesignWe conducted semistructured individual interviews with chronically ill patients. The interviewees were encouraged to share positive and negative experiences of care and the related facilitators and barriers in all settings including preventive, acute and chronic health issues. Interview data were analysed based on the concept of content analysis.SettingInterviews took place at the University Hospital Cologne, nursing homes, at participants’ homes or by telephone.ParticipantsAny person with at least one chronic illness living in the region of Cologne was eligible for participation. 25 persons with an average age of 60 years participated in the interviews. The participants suffered from various chronic conditions including mental health problems, oncological, metabolic, neurological diseases, but also shared experiences related to acute health issues.ResultsParticipants described facilitators and barriers of PCC on the microlevel (eg, patient–provider interaction), mesolevel (eg, health and social care organisation, HSCO) and macrolevel (eg, laws, financing). In addition to previous concepts, interviewees illustrated the importance of being an active patient by taking individual responsibility for health. Interviewees considered functioning teams and healthy staff members a facilitator of PCC as this can compensate stressful situations or lack of staff to some degree. A lack of transparency in financing and reimbursement was identified as barrier to PCC.ConclusionIndividual providers and HSCOs can address many facilitators and barriers of PCC as perceived by patients. Large-scale changes such as reduction of administrative barriers, the expansion of care networks or higher mandatory nurse to patient ratios require political action and incentives.Trial registration numberDRKS00011925

Purpose In order to design a patient-centered discharge process, the entire process is visualized in Value Stream Mapping. The duration of the process steps and waiting times are measured and presented. As a team, health professionals discuss problems and agree on suitable solutions. Methods After applying Value Stream Mapping, we conducted eight interviews in 2018, four with physicians and four with breast care nurses. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to develop the interview guide and to identify categories for content analysis. To identify the differences in attitude and experience between the occupational groups, we conducted a framework analysis. Results Each team of health professionals developed action steps to optimize the discharge process. Obstacles became apparent in the implementation of these action steps. The lack of adequate staff and complex structures were identified as the main factors. These hierarchical structures also prevented a patient-centered discharge process independent of patient-centered care by health professionals. Self-efficacy varied more among breast care nurses than physicians. The group of physicians perceives standardization in the discharge process critically and therefore assumes limitations in transferring Value Stream Mapping to hospitals. The breast care nurses were open in their attitude. Financial incentives contribute to the acceptance of the method. Conclusion Value Stream Mapping is a simple way to uncover waste and develop applicable action steps. Since the implementation of the action steps was hindered by hierarchical problems and a lack of resources, management involvement and a hospital-wide approach could be beneficial.

IntroductionPatients with end-stage kidney failure can be treated either by transplant or by dialysis, which can be administered as haemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD). Although they are equivalent therapeutic options in terms of mortality, the percentage of patients in Germany treated with PD is currently very low (∼6%) compared with other countries. The aim of our study is to analyse the factors behind this percentage and their relevance to the choice of dialysis treatment in Germany. This includes analyses of regional disparities in the provision of care for dialysis patients as well as the evaluations of costs and the influence of reimbursement structures. This approach should provide further insights to explain the variation in the usage of PD and HD and will help to define starting points for future interventions.Methods and analysisA mixed-methods approach will be applied to several data sources, including administrative data (ambulatory physicians’ claim data, statutory health insurance claim data), quality assurance data from one of the largest German dialysis providers Kuratorium für Dialyse (KfH) and qualitative and quantitative survey data (patients, nephrologists and dialysis nurses). Qualitative data will be analysed content-analytically. Based on the quantitative data, multivariable analyses will be performed and, where possible, hierarchical models will be tested. This multidimensional approach will enable us to account for the different factors influencing the penetration of PD in Germany.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval (17-299) has been obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Cologne on 25 April 2018. National and international dissemination will be accomplished by informing healthcare practitioners, patients and professional organisations and other stakeholders via conferences, scientific and non-scientific publications and seminars.Trial registration numberDRKS00012555; Pre-Results.

The third and final discussion paper of the German Network of Health Services Research's (DNVF) "Qualitative Methods Working Group" demonstrates methods for the evaluation and quality of qualitative research in health services research. In this paper we discuss approaches described in evaluating qualitative studies, including: an orientation to the general principles of empirical research, an approach-specific course of action, as well as procedures based on the research-process and criteria-oriented approaches. Divided into general and specific aspects to be considered in a qualitative study quality evaluation, the central focus of the discussion paper undertakes an extensive examination of the process and criteria-oriented approaches. The general aspects include the participation of relevant groups in the research process as well as ethical aspects of the research and data protection issues. The more specific aspects in evaluating the quality of qualitative research include considerations about the research interest, research questions, and the selection of data collection methods and types of analyses. The formulated questions are intended to guide reviewers and researchers to evaluate and to develop qualitative research projects appropriately. The intention of this discussion paper is to ensure a transparent research culture, and to reflect on and discuss the methodological and research approach of qualitative studies in health services research. With this paper we aim to initiate a discussion on high quality evaluation of qualitative health services research.

The aim of this exploratory study was to examine how the working conditions and job stress of private practice oncologists (PPOs) affect their interaction with patients. Data for the study were collected through semi-structured interviews with PPOs selected based on purposeful sampling criteria. The data were evaluated using content analysis. Factors perceived by PPOs to influence their level of stress and patient care were some of their own personal characteristics as well as working conditions both within and outside their practices. Apart from being able to name specific stressors (e.g., dysfunctional organisational workflow and interruptions during medical encounters), the oncologists also mentioned individual and organisational resources (e.g., professional experience, well-educated nurses and good work organisation) for coping with job stress and improving interaction with patients. Within this study, we identified some obstacles on the individual and organisational level for good patient care, as working conditions which might lead to time pressure and stress, which subsequently have an impact on quality in patient care (e.g., less time for personal issues during patient consultations). Future stress research should conduct a more in-depth investigation of these and other interventions at both the individual and organisational levels in order to improve patient care.

The needs of patients feeling severely affected by multiple sclerosis (MS) have rarely been investigated. However this is essential information to know before care can be improved, including adding palliative care (PC) services where helpful. Since it remains unclear at what point specialized palliative care should begin for this patient group, this study focuses on needs in general.The objective was to explore the subjectively unmet needs of patients feeling severely affected by MS.The study used a qualitative cross-sectional approach for needs assessment. Fifteen patients self-reporting feeling severely affected by MS were recruited and interviewed using a combination of purposive and convenience sampling (five were accompanied by a caregiver relative). Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim, followed by qualitative content analysis.Unmet needs were identified in the main categories "support of family and friends," "health care services," "managing everyday life," and "maintaining biographical continuity." Patients expressed the desire for more support from their families and to be viewed as distinct individuals. They see a substantial deficit in the physician-patient relationship and in the coordination of services. A decrease in expressed unmet needs was found for patients more severely affected and less socially integrated.To address the unmet needs of severely affected MS patients, health care services need to be improved and linked with existing PC services. Special attention is required to form supporting professional-patient relationships. Multiprofessional services should be accessible for patients, while integrating relatives. All services should have an individual approach to provide needs-tailored support.

Die Arbeitsgruppe Qualitative Methoden im Deutschen Netzwerk fur Versorgungsforschung e.V. (DNVF) zeigt mit dem ersten Teil von insgesamt 3 Diskussionspapieren die Moglichkeiten und Chancen qualitativer Forschungsmethoden fur die Versorgungsforschung auf. Eine Vielzahl von Forschungsfragestellungen implizieren den Einsatz von qualitativen Methoden, wobei dieses Potenzial in der Forschungsforderung starker ausgebaut werden sollte. Ausgehend von der Gegenstandsbestimmung und der Frage „Was ist qualitative Forschung?“ werden charakteristische Merkmale von qualitativen Methoden dargestellt. Merkmale wie u. a. ein offenes Datenformat, Interpretation von Bedeutungen, die Suche nach dem Widerspruch, Alltagsnahe, das Prinzip der Offenheit und ggf. die Notwendigkeit der Modifikation des Vorgehens im Studienverlauf zeichnen qualitative Methoden aus. Qualitative Methodenkompetenz zu schaffen ist ebenso wichtig, um die Qualitat qualitativer Forschung zu sichern, wie die Schaffung entsprechender Rahmenbedingungen, die einen ausreichenden Zeithorizont und Personaleinsatz bedingen. Qualitative Forschung stellt kein abgrenzbares Forschungsparadigma dar, vielmehr ist dies ein Oberbegriff fur heterogene Forschungsansatze. Das erste Diskussionspapier soll eine Einfuhrung in das Spektrum qualitativer Forschungsmethoden fur die Versorgungsforschung geben, welche zum wissenschaftlichen Diskussionsaustausch einladt.

Introduction The last year of life constitutes a particularly vulnerable phase for patients, involving nearly all health and social care structures. Yet, little scientific evidence is available that provides insight into the trajectories including the number and types of care setting transitions, transitions into palliative care and the dying phase. Only few studies have focused on difficulties associated with having to move between health and social care settings in the last year of life, although patients face a significant risk of adverse events. The Last Year of Life Study Cologne (LYOL-C) aims to fill this gap. Methods and analysis LYOL-C is a mixed-methods study composed of four steps: (1) Claims data collected by the statutory health insurance funds of deceased persons will be analysed with regard to patient care trajectories, health service transitions and costs in the last year of life. (2) Patient trajectories and transitions in healthcare will additionally be reconstructed by analysing the retrospective accounts of bereaved relatives (n=400) using a culturally adapted version of the Views of Informal Carers—Evaluation of Services Short Form questionnaire and the Patient Assessment of Care for Chronic Conditions Short Form questionnaire adapted for relatives. (3) Qualitative interviews with bereaved relatives (n=40–60) will provide in-depth insight into reasons for transitions and effects on patients’ quality of life. (4) Focus groups (n=3–5) with Healthcare Professionals will be conducted to discuss challenges associated with transitions in the last year of life. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been obtained from the Ethics Commission of the Faculty of Medicine of Cologne University (#17–188). Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences. Trial registration number The study is registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00011925) and in the Health Services Research Database (VfD_CoRe-Net_17_003806).

The present explorative study was designed as a qualitative evaluation of the psycho-oncology services (POS) available at a psycho-oncology institution (POI) in Germany. The study focused on barriers to using these services.Seven focus groups and five complementary individual interviews were conducted with POS users, their relatives, and POS non-users from a German POI, as well as with oncology physicians and nurses from an affiliated hospital. The focus groups and individual interviews were audiotaped and fully transcribed. Data were analyzed using the documentary method.Four utilization barriers were identified: (1) patients' and physicians' information deficits about POI and POS, (2) patients' and physicians' subjective norms regarding POS, (3) lack of organizational and therapeutic integration of POI and POS into routine oncology care on the ward, and (4) specific characteristics of cancer patients. The most important finding was that lack of organizational and therapeutic integration of POS in routine oncology care on the ward might have a lasting, negative effect on patients' and physicians' information deficits and subjective norms. Furthermore, the identified utilization barriers seem to be a multi-causal problem with complex interdependencies.Based on these results, the organizational and therapeutic integration of POS in routine oncology care on the POI ward appears to be a useful tool in offering widely accessible therapies and providing patients with concise, straightforward information via different channels, such as personnel, brochures, and the Internet. Nevertheless, the results should be interpreted tentatively, due to the explorative character of this study.