[Clinical quality governance-a practical approach in general practice with the example of influenza vaccination]. / Klinische Qualitätssteuerung ­ ein praktischer Versuch in der Hausarztpraxis am Beispiel der Influenzaimpfung.

We understand clinical quality governance (CQG) as quality management in the clinical domain. In 2020, presumably due to the coronavirus pandemic, more patients requested to be vaccinated against influenza as compared to previous years so that it became apparent that there would be a shortage for high-risk patients. To meet the problem, we started a CQG process. This article is explicitly not a research article but an exemplary description of a CQG process intended as a stimulus and for discussion. We initiated the following process: (1) evaluation of the present state, (2) patients who already had requested a vaccination were prioritized and vaccinated first, and (3) contacting via telephone and vaccination of high-risk patients not on the list. We chose patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) older than 60 years as an indicator for the group of highest priority. In the beginning only 3 (8%) of our 38 patients with COPD were vaccinated against influenza. After prioritization and vaccination of the high-risk collective in the list of those who had requested to be vaccinated, 25 (66%) of our 38 patients with COPD were vaccinated. After a phone call of high-risk patients not on the list, 28 (74%) patients were vaccinated. This represents an increase of vaccination coverage from 8% to 74% which is close to the rate recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). In times of a pandemic, family physicians occasionally have to deal with a scarcity of resources and have to develop strategies for fair resource allocation. Not only in this context is CQG worth the effort. The generation of list queries could be improved by the providers of electronic patient records.

[General Practitioners' Experiences with COVID-19: a Survey After the First Wave of the Pandemic in March/April 2020]. / Erfahrungen von HausärztInnen mit COVID-19 und der Pandemie ­ ein Survey nach der ersten Pandemiewelle im März/April 2020.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (Mar-Apr 2020) posed significant challenges for primary care. The goal of this study was to analyse the burden of the crisis situation as experienced by the general practitioners (GPs) at its beginning and over the course of the pandemic and to identify factors predictive of the sense of being overburdened. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, a total of 6300 randomly selected GPs in four federal states of Germany were contacted per post in order to survey changes in health care they provided and their psychological burden in the context of the pandemic between August and October 2020. RESULTS: The response rate was 23%; 46% of the participants were female. At the beginning of the pandemic, 40% of the participants experienced a high or a very high level of being overburdened; later on, it was only 10%. With increasing numbers of COVID patients, the sense of being overburdened increased, as also their perceived capability to care for COVID patients. Predictors of a sense of being overburdened were, among others, a high level of psychological stress, excessive organising efforts, poor capability to care for COVID patients, and scarce supply of protective equipment. CONCLUSION: Despite a sense of being overburdened initially, GPs felt increasingly capable of caring for COVID patients. To help GPs in future crisis situations like this pandemic, organization of care should be simplified to the extent possible so that they can focus on patient care.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people in need of care or support: protocol for a SARS-CoV-2 registry.

INTRODUCTION: People in need of care or support are severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We lack valid data of long-term assessments. We present a register study to detect the physical and psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people in need of care or support in Bavaria, Germany. To describe the persons' life conditions comprehensively, we assess the perspectives and needs of the respective care teams too. Results will serve as evidence-based source to manage the pandemic and long-term prevention strategies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The 'Bavarian ambulatory COVID-19 Monitor' is a multicentre registry including a purposive sample of up to 1000 patient-participants across three study sites in Bavaria. The study group consists of 600 people in need of care with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. Control group 1 comprises 200 people in need of care with a negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR test, while control group 2 comprises 200 people with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test but are not in need of care. We assess the clinical course of infection, psychosocial aspects and care needs using validated measures. Follow-up is every 6 months for up to 3 years. Additionally, we assess up to 400 people linked to these patient-participants (caregivers, general practitioners (GPs)) for their health and needs. Main analyses are stratified by level of care I-V (I=minor/V=most severe impairment of independence), inpatient/outpatient care setting, sex and age. We use descriptive and inferential statistics to analyse cross-sectional data and changes over time. In qualitative interviews with 60 stakeholders (people in need of care, caregivers, GPs, politicians), we explore interface problems of different functional logics, of everyday and professional perspectives. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Institutional Review Board of the University Hospital LMU Munich (#20-860) and the study sites (Universities of Wurzburg and Erlangen) approved the protocol. We disseminate the results by peer-reviewed publications, international conferences, governmental reports, etc.

Detecting Medication Risks among People in Need of Care: Performance of Six Instruments.

INTRODUCTION: Numerous tools exist to detect potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) and potential prescribing omissions (PPO) in older people, but it remains unclear which tools may be most relevant in which setting. OBJECTIVES: This cross sectional study compares six validated tools in terms of PIM and PPO detection. METHODS: We examined the PIM/PPO prevalence for all tools combined and the sensitivity of each tool. The pairwise agreement between tools was determined using Cohen's Kappa. RESULTS: We included 226 patients in need of care (median (IQR age 84 (80-89)). The overall PIM prevalence was 91.6 (95% CI, 87.2-94.9)% and the overall PPO prevalence was 63.7 (57.1-69.9%)%. The detected PIM prevalence ranged from 76.5%, for FORTA-C/D, to 6.6% for anticholinergic drugs (German-ACB). The PPO prevalences for START (63.7%) and FORTA-A (62.8%) were similar. The pairwise agreement between tools was poor to moderate. The sensitivity of PIM detection was highest for FORTA-C/D (55.1%), and increased to 79.2% when distinct items from STOPP were added. CONCLUSION: Using a single screening tool may not have sufficient sensitivity to detect PIMs and PPOs. Further research is required to optimize the composition of PIM and PPO tools in different settings.

"What else to say?"-Primary health care in times of COVID-19 from the perspective of German general practitioners: An exploratory analysis of the open text field in the PRICOV-19 study.

BACKGROUND: The international collaboration study PRICOV-19 -Primary Health Care in times of COVID-19 aims to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the organisation of primary health care. The German part focuses on the subjective perceptions of general practitioners on primary health care and the impact of political measures during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Within this survey, the "open text field" of the questionnaire was utilised remarkably frequently and extensively by the respondents. It became clear that the content that was named needed to be analysed in an exploratory manner. Accordingly, this paper addresses the following question: What preoccupies general practitioners in Germany during COVID-19 that we have not yet asked them enough? METHODS: The data collection took place throughout Germany from 01.02.2021 to 28.02.2021with a quantitative online questionnaire consisting of 53 items arranged across six topics as well as an "open text field" for further comments. The questionnaire's open text field was analysed following the premises of the qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The topics discussed by the respondents were: insufficient support from health policies, not being prioritised and involved in the vaccination strategy, feeling insufficient prepared, that infrastructural changes and financial concerns threatened the practice, and perceiving the own role as important, as well as that health policies affected the wellbeing of the respondents. One of the main points was the way general practitioners were not sufficiently acknowledged for their contribution to ensuring high-quality care during the pandemic. DISCUSSION: German general practitioners perceived their work and role as highly relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic. In controversy with their perception, they described political conditions in which they were the ones who contributed significantly to the fight against the pandemic but were not given enough recognition.

One year of general practice during the COVID-19 pandemic – presentation and evaluation of digital medical education Ein Jahr Allgemeinmedizin während der COVID-19-Pandemie – Darstellung und Evaluation der digitalen medizinischen Ausbildung

Background and teaching situation: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic had a substantial didactic impact on medical teaching. In Erlangen, the lecture “General Practice” was offered asynchronously and digitally in an inverted-classroom concept. Contents were available via a learning platform. The lecture was presented using annotated videos, consolidation materials and control questions. A forum encouraged for discussions and feedback and collected in-depth aspects for a case-based video consultation. The aim of this work is to evaluate and critically examine the digital teaching concept during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Methodology: Two semester cohorts evaluated the lecture. Overall impression of the lecture, didactic elements, suitability and the desired future lecture format were surveyed quantitatively. Free text answers were evaluated by means of qualitative content synthesis. Results: In terms of overall impression, the students (N=199) rated the lecture on average as “very good” (M=1.41, SD=.57). Digital methods were perceived as suitable for supporting self-study, and digital usage was rated as unproblematically (M=1.18, SD=.50). Desired future teaching formats were blended learning concepts (79.4%). Organisation, structure and content presentation were highly appreciated. The time for completing the course was perceived critically. The students urged for more practical and consolidating lecture work. Discussion and implications: The results illustrate high acceptance of digital teaching and underline the demand for future blended learning concepts. It is particularly important to better consider the students’ time investment and practical relevance of digital self-learning mechanisms.

Active monitoring of adverse reactions following COVID-19 and other vaccinations: a feasibility study as part of the CoVaKo project.

BACKGROUND: The Corona-Vakzin-Konsortium project (CoVaKo) analyses the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in a real-world setting, as well as breakthrough infections in Bavaria, Germany. A subproject of CoVaKo aims to identify adverse reactions of the COVID-19 vaccine and compare these to adverse reactions of other vaccines in an online survey. In a preceding feasibility study, the study materials were tested for comprehensibility, visual design, and motivation to participate, as well as for their ability to be implemented and carried out in primary care practices and vaccination centres. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods research design. First, three focus groups consisting of general population participants were organised to evaluate the study materials and survey. Second, a test roll-out was conducted in vaccination centres and primary care practices that involved implementing and quantitatively evaluating the online survey. Third, interviews were conducted with participating general practitioners and heads of vaccination centres four weeks after the test roll-out. RESULTS: Parts of the information and registration form proved incomprehensible, specifically regarding the recruitment material and/or online survey. For example, headings were misleading given that, relative to other vaccinations, the COVID-19 vaccination was overemphasised in the title. Participants requested additional information regarding the procedure and completion time. Within 31 days, 2199 participants, who received either a COVID-19 vaccination (99%) or at least one of the control vaccinations (1%), registered for the study. Participants (strongly) agreed that the registration process was easy to understand, that the completion time was reasonable, and that the technical setup was straightforward. Physicians and heads of the vaccination centres perceived the study as easy to integrate into their workflow. The majority expressed willingness to participate in the main study. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicated that identifying and documenting adverse reactions following vaccinations using an online survey is feasible. Testing materials and surveys provided valuable insight, enabling subsequent improvements. Participation from health professionals proved essential in ensuring the practicality of procedures. Lastly, adapting the study's organisation to external fluctuating structures and requirements confirmed necessary for a successful implementation, especially due to dynamic changes in the nation's COVID-19 vaccination strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was retrospectively registered at the "Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien" (DRKS-ID: DRKS00025881 ) on Oct 14, 2021.

One year of general practice during the COVID-19 pandemic - presentation and evaluation of digital medical education.

Background and teaching situation: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic had a substantial didactic impact on medical teaching. In Erlangen, the lecture "General Practice" was offered asynchronously and digitally in an inverted-classroom concept. Contents were available via a learning platform. The lecture was presented using annotated videos, consolidation materials and control questions. A forum encouraged for discussions and feedback and collected in-depth aspects for a case-based video consultation. The aim of this work is to evaluate and critically examine the digital teaching concept during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Methodology: Two semester cohorts evaluated the lecture. Overall impression of the lecture, didactic elements, suitability and the desired future lecture format were surveyed quantitatively. Free text answers were evaluated by means of qualitative content synthesis. Results: In terms of overall impression, the students (N=199) rated the lecture on average as "very good" (M=1.41, SD=.57). Digital methods were perceived as suitable for supporting self-study, and digital usage was rated as unproblematically (M=1.18, SD=.50). Desired future teaching formats were blended learning concepts (79.4%). Organisation, structure and content presentation were highly appreciated. The time for completing the course was perceived critically. The students urged for more practical and consolidating lecture work. Discussion and implications: The results illustrate high acceptance of digital teaching and underline the demand for future blended learning concepts. It is particularly important to better consider the students' time investment and practical relevance of digital self-learning mechanisms.

Reactogenicity after heterologous and homologous COVID-19 prime-boost vaccination regimens: descriptive interim results of a comparative observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Due to safety signals after vaccination with COVID-19 vector vaccines, several states recommended to complete the primary immunization series in individuals having received one dose of ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca) with an mRNA vaccine. However, data on safety and reactogenicity of this heterologous regimen are still scarce. The aim of this study was therefore to compare the reactogenicity and the frequency of medical consultations after boost vaccination in a heterologous regimen with ChAdOx1 and mRNA-vaccines (BNT162b2, BioNTech/Pfizer or mRNA-1273, Moderna) to homologous regimens with ChAdOx1 or mRNA-vaccines, respectively. METHODS: In an observational cohort study reactogenicity and safety were assessed 14-19 days (short-term) and 40 to 56 days (long-term) after the boost vaccination using web-based surveys. In the short-term survey solicited and unsolicited reactions were assessed, while the long-term survey focussed on health problems leading to medical consultation after the vaccination, including those that were not suspected to be vaccine-related. RESULTS: In total, 9146 participants completed at least one of the surveys (ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1: n = 552, ChAdOx1/mRNA: n = 2382, mRNA/mRNA: n = 6212). In the short-term survey, 86% with ChAdOx1/mRNA regimen reported at least one reaction, in the ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1 and mRNA/mRNA cohorts 58% and 76%, respectively (age and sex adjusted p < 0.0001). In the long-term survey, comparable proportions of individuals reported medical consultation (ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1 vs. ChAdOx1/mRNA vs. mRNA/mRNA: 15% vs. 18% vs. 16%, age and sex adjusted p = 0.398). Female gender was associated with a higher reactogenicity and more medical consultations. Younger age was associated with a higher reactogenicity, whereas elderly people reported more medical consultations. CONCLUSION: Although the short-term reactogenicity was higher with the heterologous regimen than with the homologous regimens, other factors such as higher efficacy and limited resources during the pandemic may prevail in recommending specific regimens.

Asynchronous, digital teaching in times of COVID-19: a teaching example from general practice.

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic had a strong impact on academic teaching and could change it sustainably. Ad hoc digitization of teaching had to be carried out. General practice teaching situation: Education in general practice at the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) offers, in addition to the main lecture, various elective courses, clinical traineeships, internship as well as the elective part in the final practical year. The main lecture and one clinical elective course were offered digitally in the summer term 2020. Digital methods: In the main lecture, an adapted inverted-classroom concept was used. Podcasts and audio annotated videos were provided. Teaching materials were reflected via a weekly, 1hr video consultation and in a forum. An asynchronous learning module was developed for the elective course "Smart Decision-making in Clinical Practice". Each module consisted of course preparation, podcasts and follow-ups as well as a supervised forum. Results: The main lecture (response rate n=115/170; 67.6%) was rated "very good" on average. The same applies to the commented videos. The forum, reflective video consultation and teaching materials were rated "good" on average. The predominantly desired forms of presence were "Focus on virtual with in-depth presence phases" (n=54) and "Focus on presence phases, virtual support only" (n=37). Discussion and implications: The digital restructuring enables students to work on the course contents independently. This requires self-regulation strategies, which in future shall be taught through portfolio work. The teaching focus shifts from a passive teaching format to an interactive one. First evaluation results showed a very good acceptance by the students.