Search

Structured management programs have been developed for single diseases but rarely for patients with multiple medications. We conducted a qualitative study to investigate the views of stakeholders on the development and implementation of a polypharmacy management program in Germany. Overall, we interviewed ten experts in the fields of health policy and clinical practice. Using content analysis, we identified inclusion criteria for the selection of suitable patients, the individual elements that should make up such a program, healthcare providers and stakeholders that should be involved, and factors that may support or hinder the program's implementation. All stakeholders were well aware of polypharmacy-related risks and challenges, as well as the urgent need for change. Intervention strategies should address all levels of care and include all concerned patients, caregivers, healthcare providers and stakeholders, and involved parties should agree on a joint approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The successful treatment of a multitude of chronic diseases is largely dependent on effective interprofessional collaboration. In Germany, many healthcare employees feel unprepared for the challenges of interprofessional teamwork. Can a seminar designed by an interprofessional team for an interprofessional target group improve mutual understanding and provide the basis for successful interprofessional collaboration? Methodological approach: For the development of the seminar, Kern's model for curriculum development was used, which includes the following six steps: problem identification, needs analysis, goal definition (learning objectives and learning content), educational strategies, implementation and evaluation. The all-day event brought together physiotherapists, pharmacists, medical assistants and doctors undergoing specialist training in family medicine. Representatives of the various professions were recruited through multiple channels (associations, pharmacist societies, alumni-networks, etc.). Practical examples and role-play were used to develop a better understanding of each other's professions and to support goal-oriented and appreciative communication among them. The seminar belongs to the curriculum provided by the Hesse Competence Center for Specialist Training in General Practice and has so far taken place three times. The evaluation was carried out by means of a detailed, self-designed questionnaire with five open and 20 closed questions. The statistical analysis was mainly descriptive (mean value, minimum, maximum and SD). Results: Overall, 29 persons have participated in the workshops (eleven doctors undergoing specialist training, six physiotherapists, six pharmacists, six medical assistants). Overall, the seminar was rated very highly. Individual aspects of the seminar's design, such as relevance and practice-orientation, as well as an assessment of whether the seminar contributed towards increasing participants' ability to collaborate with other professionals, were rated positively. In addition, a pre-post comparison of self-assessed ability to collaborate interprofessionally showed significant improvement. Discussion: This highly interactive one-day seminar design contributed towards improving understanding for other professions and communication skills. In order to achieve a broad-based improvement in interprofessional collaboration over the long term, this or similar concepts should be employed more extensively. Conclusions: The results suggest that participants in interprofessional seminars consider them to improve interprofessional collaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background : Cumulative anticholinergic exposure, also known as anticholinergic burden, is associated with a variety of adverse outcomes. However, studies show that anticholinergic effects tend to be underestimated by prescribers, and anticholinergics are the most frequently prescribed potentially inappropriate medication in older patients. The grading systems and drugs included in existing scales to quantify anticholinergic burden differ considerably and do not adequately account for patients' susceptibility to medications. Furthermore, their ability to link anticholinergic burden with adverse outcomes such as falls is unclear. This study aims to develop a prognostic model that predicts falls in older general practice patients, to assess the performance of several anticholinergic burden scales, and to quantify the added predictive value of anticholinergic symptoms in this context. Methods : Data from two cluster-randomized controlled trials investigating medication optimization in older general practice patients in Germany will be used. One trial (RIME, n = 1,197) will be used for the model development and the other trial (PRIMUM, n = 502) will be used to externally validate the model. A priori, candidate predictors will be selected based on a literature search, predictor availability, and clinical reasoning. Candidate predictors will include socio-demographics (e.g. age, sex), morbidity (e.g. single conditions), medication (e.g. polypharmacy, anticholinergic burden as defined by scales), and well-being (e.g. quality of life, physical function). A prognostic model including sociodemographic and lifestyle-related factors, as well as variables on morbidity, medication, health status, and well-being, will be developed, whereby the prognostic value of extending the model to include additional patient-reported symptoms will be also assessed. Logistic regression will be used for the binary outcome, which will be defined as "no falls" vs. "≥1 fall" within six months of baseline, as reported in patient interviews. Discussion : As the ability of different anticholinergic burden scales to predict falls in older patients is unclear, this study may provide insights into their relative importance as well as into the overall contribution of anticholinergic symptoms and other patient characteristics. The results may support general practitioners in their clinical decision-making and in prescribing fewer medications with anticholinergic properties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The coronavirus (COVID-19) has presented Germany with major challenges and has led to concerns about patient safety. We conducted an observational, population-based, nationwide, repeated cross-sectional survey on patient safety in Germany in 2019, 2020, and 2021. Each of the three samples consisted of 1000 randomly recruited adults. Self-reported data via computer-assisted telephone interviews were taken from TK Monitor of Patient Safety. Perceptions, experience, and knowledge relating to patient safety were assessed. The majority of respondents considered medical treatment to involve risks to patient safety. This proportion decreased during the pandemic. The majority also had a high degree of self-efficacy regarding the prevention of medical errors, whereby the percentage that felt well informed with regard to patient safety rose throughout the pandemic. The proportion of persons that suspected they had in the past experienced an error in their treatment remained steady at one third as well as the reported errors. In 2020, 65% of respondents thought health communication with service providers (e.g., extent and comprehensibility of information) remained unchanged during the pandemic, while 35% reported that medical appointments had been cancelled or postponed. This study is the first to assess patient safety from a general population perspective during the coronavirus pandemic in Germany. COVID-19 had a positive impact on perceived patient safety but no impact on suspected and reported errors. Self-efficacy with regard to medical error prevention steadily increased in the general population, and people considered themselves well informed.