Overview article: Impact of primary and secondary care collaboration on hospitalization for chronic heart failure: Two comparative studies.

INTRODUCTION: In the past decade, a legal framework was created in Germany that promotes intense collaboration at the interface between primary and secondary care. This overview article distinguishes between the effects of two complementary programs aimed at improving ambulatory care in Baden-Wuerttemberg: (1) general practitioner-centered care (GPCC), which strengthens the role of general practitioners, and (2) collaborative cardiology care (CCC), which coordinates primary and cardiology care. METHODS: The overview article presents two already published studies that assess the impact of the programs on hospitalizations in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) based on claims data from 2016. The hospitalization rate of patients enrolled in GPCC (N=75,096) and CCC (N=13,404) were compared with corresponding control groups (N=65,618 and N=8,776 respectively). RESULTS: The hospitalization rate in GPCC was lower than in the control group (risk ratio 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95-0.99, P=0.0024). GPCC patients with CHF that received specialist cardiology care as part of CCC had significantly lower hospitalization rates than those receiving standard cardiology care (risk ratio 0.92; 0.88-0.97, P=0.0014). DISCUSSION: This overwiew study shows that reforming medical care and compensation at the interface between general practice and specialist care can lead to fewer hospital admissions in patients with CHF. CONCLUSION: Overall, this article underlines the importance of collaboration between primary care physicians and specialists for patients with CHF that are receiving ambulatory care.

From niche topic to inclusion in the curriculum - design and evaluation of the elective course "climate change and health".

Objective: At the Medical Faculty of the Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, the elective course "climate change and health" was offered to students in the clinical phase of their medical studies for the first time in the winter semester 2021/22 (any unfilled places were made available to interested students studying other subjects). Despite attracting considerable attention, this topic has not yet been incorporated into the curriculum of medical studies. Our aim was therefore to teach students about climate change and discuss its effects on human health. The students evaluated the elective in terms of various factors relating to knowledge, attitudes and behavior. Project description: The elective focused on the concept of Planetary Health, with an emphasis on the health consequences of climate change, as well as possibilities for action and adaptation in clinical and practical settings. The course took place in three live, online sessions (with inputs, discussion, case studies and work in small groups), as well as online preparation and a final written assignment for which students were asked to reflect on the subject. The standardized teaching evaluation questionnaire (=didactic dimension) of Goethe University was used online to evaluate the elective, whereby the questionnaire was extended to include the measurement of changes in students' agreement with items (dimensions) relating to knowledge, attitudes and behavior (personal behavior and behavior as physicians) before and after the course (pre/post comparison). Results: Students expressed high levels of satisfaction with the course content, the presentation of the course, and the organization of the elective. This was reflected in very good to good overall ratings. The pre/post comparisons further showed a significant, positive shift in agreement ratings in almost all dimensions. The majority of respondents also wanted the topic to be firmly embedded in the medical curriculum. Conclusion: The evaluation shows that with respect to the impact of climate change on human health, the elective course had a clear influence on the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of the students. In view of the relevance of the topic, it is therefore important that this subject is included in medical curricula in the future.

Evaluation of a collaborative ambulatory orthopedic care program for patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis: a comparative observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In 2014, the novel orthopedic care program was established by the AOK health insurance fund in southern Germany to improve ambulatory care for patients with musculoskeletal disorders. The program offers extended consultation times, structured collaboration between general practitioners and specialists, as well as a renewed focus on guideline-recommended therapies and patient empowerment. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the program on health service utilization in patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study, which is based on claims data, evaluated health service utilization in patients with hip and knee OA from 2014 to 2017. The intervention group comprised OA patients enrolled in collaborative ambulatory orthopedic care, and the control group received usual care. The outcomes were participation in exercise interventions, prescription of physical therapy, OA-related hospitalization, and endoprosthetic surgery rates. Generalized linear regression models were used to analyze the effect of the intervention. RESULTS: Claims data for 24,170 patients were analyzed. Data for the 23,042 patients in the intervention group were compared with data for the 1,128 patients in the control group. Participation in exercise interventions (Odds Ratio (OR): 1.781; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.230-2.577; p = 0.0022), and overall prescriptions of physical therapy (Rate Ratio (RR): 1.126; 95% CI: 1.025-1.236; p = 0.0128) were significantly higher in the intervention group. The intervention group had a significantly lower risk of OA -related hospitalization (OR: 0.375; 95% CI: 0.290-0.485; p < 0.0001). Endoprosthetic surgery of the knee was performed in 53.8% of hospitalized patients in the intervention group vs. 57.5% in the control group; 27.7% of hospitalized patients underwent endoprosthetic surgery of the hip in the intervention group versus 37.0% in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with hip and knee OA, collaborative ambulatory orthopedic care is associated with a lower risk of OA-related hospitalization, higher participation in exercise interventions, and more frequently prescribed physical therapy.

Differences in opioid prescription rates between patients with musculoskeletal disorders enrolled in coordinated ambulatory healthcare and patients receiving usual care: a retrospective observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare opioid prescription rates between patients enrolled in coordinated ambulatory care and patients receiving usual care. DESIGN: In this retrospective cohort study, we analysed claims data for insured patients with non-specific/specific back pain or osteoarthritis of hip or knee from 2014 to 2017. SETTING: The study was based on administrative data provided by the statutory health insurance fund 'Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse', in the state of Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany. PARTICIPANTS: The intervention group consisted of patients enrolled in a coordinated ambulatory healthcare model; the control group included patients receiving usual care. Outcomes were overall strong and weak opioid prescriptions. Generalised linear regression models were used to analyse the effect of the intervention. RESULTS: Overall, 46 001 (non-specific 18 787/specific 27 214) patients with back pain and 19 366 patients with osteoarthritis belonged to the intervention group, and 7038 (2803/4235) and 963 patients to the control group, respectively. No significant difference in opioid prescriptions existed between the groups. However, the chance of being prescribed strong opioids was significantly lower in the intervention group (non-specific back pain: Odds Ratio (OR) 0.735, 95% Confidential Interval (CI) 0.563 to 0.960; specific back pain: OR 0.702, 95% CI 0.577 to 0.852; osteoarthritis: OR 0.644, 95% CI 0.464 to 0.892). The chance of being prescribed weak opioids was significantly higher in patients with specific back pain (OR 1.243, 95% CI 1.032 to 1.497) and osteoarthritis (OR 1.493, 95% CI 1.037 to 2.149) in the intervention group. CONCLUSION: Coordinated ambulatory healthcare appears to be associated with a lower prescription rate for strong opioids in patients with chronic musculoskeletal disorders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00017548).

Patient Safety and the COVID-19 Pandemic in Germany: A Repeated Population-Based Cross-Sectional Survey.

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.