[Redirection of patients from the emergency department to ambulatory care: a feasibility study]. / Steuerung von Patient*innen aus Notaufnahmen in die vertragsärztliche Versorgung: Eine Machbarkeitsstudie.

BACKGROUND: § 120 para. 3b SGB V mandates the Federal Joint Committee to define guidelines for the initial assessment of self-referred walk-in patients as well as for the redirection of patients who can be treated by office-based physicians. A corresponding streaming and redirection process was tested in a feasibility study at the RoMed Clinic Rosenheim. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For the duration of the study, triage nurses of the emergency department (ED) first assessed self-referred walk-in patients with the Manchester Triage System (MTS). Patients in categories green and blue who did not obviously need the ED's resources were additionally assessed by health professionals of the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians of Bavaria using the software Structured Initial Medical Assessment in Germany (SmED). Patients with a recommendation for non-hospital medical treatment were streamed to the out-of-hours practice on campus or were redirected to a physician office after video consultation with an office-based physician. Patient pathways were documented and a qualitative survey using semistructured guided interviews of all stakeholder groups was carried out. RESULTS: 1,091 self-referred walk-in patients were included. Direct streaming to the ED occurred in 525 cases,13 refused to participate. Based on SmED, 24 additional patients were referred to the ED, 514 patients were streamed to the out-of-hours practice, 23 received a video consultation and five left the ED. After video consultation, eight patients were redirected to a physician's office, 10 were discharged, and five referred to the ED of which one did not want an office-based physician. No returnees from practices to the ED were identified. Generally, the redirection process was evaluated positively in the interviews (n=18). In particular, potential for technical improvement was identified. CONCLUSION: Overall, the results indicate the feasibility of the redirection process and high acceptance levels. Using SmED in addition to MTS appeared useful before redirection but not necessary for streaming on campus. Redirection to physician offices can help reduce strain on the ED when the out-of-hours practice is not operating. In addition to arranging acute care appointments, video consultations offer an additional potential to treat patients. In a follow-up study, a broader range of patients should be included and appropriateness of redirection decisions should be evaluated.

Interrupting chains of respiratory infections via remote patient monitoring in ambulatory care - a randomized controlled trial during the 2020/21 infection season.

Aim of the study: The aim of the study was to investigate patient satisfaction, saving of time and the possible reduction of visits to medical practices that use Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) during treatment compared to usual care. Methods: In a randomized controlled trial between October 2020 and May 2021, the participating medical practices were randomized into three groups (two different RPM systems, one control). Doctors were required to enroll patients ≥18 years with acute respiratory infection in possession of a web-enabled device, such as a laptop, tablet or computer. After a three-month study phase, doctors were asked to describe the treatment of their patients via online survey. Patients were also questioned. The analysis was carried out descriptively and through group comparisons. Results: 51 practices with 121 patients were included. Overall, the results generally show a positive assessment of digital care on the patient side. As for the doctors, handling and integrating the systems into established practice routines seem to be a challenge. Further, the number of patient visits to the medical practice was not reduced by using the systems. Doctors did not save time, but the relationship to the patients was intensified. Conclusion: While there was no indication for an increase in efficiency by using RPM systems, participating doctors indicated their potential for an enhanced interaction between doctor and patient. In particular, intensified interaction contact with patients with chronic diseases (e. g. COPD, long-COVID) could be of long-term interest and importance for doctors in ambulatory care.Trial Registration: DRKS00023553.

[Diagnosis Coding in German Medical Practices: A Retrospective Study Using Routine Data]. / Diagnosenkodierung in deutschen Arztpraxen aus klassifikatorischer Sicht: Eine retrospektive Studie mit Routinedaten.

OBJECTIVES: Primary care physicians and specialists deal with a wide range of diseases. The diagnoses are coded by using the annual version of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revised version, German modification (ICD-10-GM). The aim of this study was to describe the current spectrum of documented diagnoses by physicians. Based on the underlying conditions, a broad variety of ICD-10-GM codes could be expected, which in many cases would not be coded to the final character (terminal). METHODS: 22,287,583 data sets of 900 medical practices of 13 various physician groups were included in this retrospective study. The data originate from the regions Brandenburg and North Rhine and the accounting period October 2014 - September 2015. The normalized Gini coefficient was applied as a measure for inequality. RESULTS: 97.6 % of the total data set were coded to the final character using the ICD-10-GM. ENT physicians used the highest rate of terminal codes (99.6 %), whereas orthopedists and cardiologists used the lowest rate (94.0 %). The broadest variety of different ICD-10-GM codes was used by primary care physicians (71.1 % of all possible terminal codes), the smallest variety was used by ophthalmologists (22.9 %). The lowest inequality of using ICD-10-GM codes could be detected for primary care physicians (Gini coefficient: 0.56), the highest inequality could be shown for ophthalmologists (Gini coefficient: 0.93). CONCLUSIONS: The specialists mainly use a circumscribed set of ICD-10-GM codes, whereas primary care physicians not only use a broad variety of different ICD-10-GM codes, but very often code them to their final character. This indicates a high quality of coding.