Influence of Cooperation Work on Management Continuity of Ambulatory Cardiovascular Care: A Cross-Sectional Exploratory Study in Germany.

Introduction: A wide range of factors influence coordination and continuity of care. The aim of this study was to explore how management continuity of cardiovascular-related ambulatory care is influenced by the following network characteristics: presence of a case coordinator, network reciprocity, network composition and team climate. Methods: This cross-sectional observational study included three written surveys. The primary outcome management continuity of cardiovascular care was measured with the team/cross-boundary scale in the Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire. The final analysis comprised a multivariate linear multilevel model with the predictors: presence of a case coordinator, network reciprocity, network composition and team climate. Results: Eighteen general practices with 83 health workers and 340 patients participated. The linear multilevel regression analysis showed a positive influence of team climate on cross-boundary continuity of care (b-coefficient 0.44, 95% confidence interval 0.09-0.78, p = 0.02). No statistically significant influence was measured for the other predictors. Discussion: To improve integrated care, therefore, emphasis should also be placed on promoting the team climate within individual practices. Regarding network characteristics, further research is needed, especially in larger practices. Conclusion: This study showed that team climate had an independent, relevant and statistically significant association with cross-boundary continuity of cardiovascular ambulatory care.

Keeping up with evidence-based recommendations - a qualitative interview study with general practitioners in Germany on information-seeking behaviour in cardiovascular care.

BACKGROUND: Due to the nature of their work, general practitioners (GPs) need to be up to date with evidence in various medical domains. While much synthesised research evidence is easily accessible nowadays, in practice, the time to search for and review this evidence proposes a challenge. In German primary care, the knowledge infrastructure is rather fragmented, leaving GPs with relatively few primary care specific resources of information and many resources from other medical fields. This study aimed to explore GPs information-seeking behaviour regarding evidence-based recommendations in cardiovascular care in Germany. METHODS: To explore views of GPs a qualitative research design was chosen. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews. In total, 27 telephone interviews with GPs were conducted between June and November 2021.Verbatim transcript interviews were then analysed using thematic analysis, deriving at themes inductively. RESULTS: Two broad strategies of information-seeking behaviour in GP could be distinguished: (a) generic information-seeking behaviour and (b) casuistic information-seeking. The first referring to strategies GPs apply to keep up with medical developments such as new medication and the second referring to purposeful information exchange regarding individual patients, such as referral letters. The second strategy was also used to keep up with medical developments in general. CONCLUSION: In a fragmented information landscape, GPs used information exchange on individual patients to remain informed about medical developments in general. Initiatives to implement recommended practices need to take this into account, either by using these sources of influence or by making GPs aware of possible bias and risks. The findings also emphasize the importance of systematic evidence-based sources of information for GPs. TRAIL REGISTRATION: We registered the study prospectively on 07/11/2019 at the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS, www.drks.de ) under ID no. DRKS00019219.

Opinion seeking behaviour of healthcare providers in ambulatory cardiovascular care in Germany: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare providers' inclination to seek or lead other providers' opinions on clinical topics may influence healthcare practices, particularly regarding their alignment across different providers in controversial domains. This study aimed to explore opinion-seeking behaviours of general practitioners and their impacts on clinical opinions in ambulatory cardiovascular care in Germany. METHODS: Between 2019 and 2021, we performed a written survey in two samples of general practitioners and one sample of self-employed cardiologists in three German states. The general practitioners were asked to identify a person they deemed influential on their views on cardiovascular conditions. Their self-perceived opinion leadership and opinion seeking behaviours were then measured, using a validated 12-item-questionnaire. General practitioners and cardiologists were requested to indicate their agreement with three potentially controversial aspects of cardiovascular ambulatory care. Potential impacts on the general practitioners' views, including local cardiologists' opinions, were examined using multi-level linear regression models. RESULTS: A total of 129 general practitioners and 113 cardiologists returned the questionnaire. 68.50% of general practitioners named an opinion leader, mainly cardiologists outside of their practice. General practitioners perceived themselves as opinion seeking and as opinion leading at the same time. Views on the presented controversial topics were mixed among both general practitioners and cardiologists. Self-reported opinion leadership behaviour of general practitioners was associated with their views on one of the three topics. No such associations were found for opinion seeking behaviours and the views of local cardiologists. CONCLUSION: While most general practitioners named a cardiovascular opinion leader and saw themselves as opinion seeking regarding cardiovascular issues, they simultaneously perceived themselves as opinion leading, suggesting that opinion leadership and opinion seeking are not mutually exclusive concepts. The views of local cardiologists were not associated with the general practitioners' view, suggesting that local medical specialists do not necessarily influence the surrounding opinion seekers' views per se. TRIAL REGISTRATION: We registered the study prospectively on 7 November 2019 at the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS, www.drks.de ) under ID no. DRKS00019219.

Measuring continuity of ambulatory cardiovascular care: a cross-sectional study on the applicability of the Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Chronic cardiovascular diseases demand continuous care from general practitioners and medical specialists. Especially in fragmented healthcare systems, such as in Germany, a large body of research is devoted to the improvement of care continuity. Meanwhile, measuring continuity of care itself has been a challenge due to the absence of validated instruments. In 2011, the Dutch Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire (NCQ) was developed and validated to measure continuity of care across care settings from the patients' perspectives in the Netherlands. Its applicability in other countries and health systems, however, has rarely been tested. We therefore aimed at assessing the applicability of the Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire to the German health care context.  METHODS: We translated and applied the original NCQ to an ambulatory cardiovascular care setting in Germany. Qualitative interview data and quantitative survey data on our adaptation were collected from patients in 27 general practices within the German states of Baden-Wuerttemberg and Rhineland-Palatinate. Qualitative data on understandability and clearness of the questionnaire was obtained using semi-structured telephone interviews and think aloud-protocols. Quantitative data was obtained through an anonymous written questionnaire containing the translated NCQ items to assess applicability of our translation. We performed confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses based on the original NCQ-structure mapped to general practitioners and an aggregated analysis of general practitioners and cardiologists combined. RESULTS: A total of 6 patients participated in the interviews and a total of 435 patients participated in the written survey. The interviews showed that, overall, patients had little difficulties comprehending and answering to our translation of the NCQ. The confirmatory factor analyses then showed that the structure of the original NCQ with 12 items and 3 latent factors can also be found in the German context. However, a simpler 2-factor-structure would also fit well with the data. CONCLUSION: A German translation of the NCQ yielded a factor structure comparable to the original version and proved to be understandable for patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The project underlying the study was registered on November 7, 2019 in the German Clinical Trials Register ( www.drks.de ) under ID: DRKS00019219.

Implementation of a Managed Care Programme in Germany Using the Example of the Baden-Wuerttemberg Contract on Care in the Field of Cardiology.

This thesis analysed the implementation of the German medical specialists' contract in cardiology, a managed care programme within the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg. Research focused on exploring differences between participating and non-participating physicians, their motivation to participate, actual implementation of the programme and its perceived effects. Mixed methods consisting of questionnaires and qualitative telephone interviews with cardiologists and general practitioners showed that participants were older than non-participants, participation was mainly financially driven and implementation was successful regarding medical aspects, but less so regarding patient services and communication between providers. The majority of physicians in the study perceived little to no impact of the programme on quality and efficiency of cardiology care. Still, they saw their expectations fulfilled.

Patient-reported continuity of care and the association with patient experience of cardiovascular prevention: an observational study in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular diseases are often accompanied by comorbidities, which require good coordination of care. Especially in fragmented healthcare systems, it is important to apply strategies such as case management to achieve high continuity of care. The aim of this study was to document continuity of care from the patients' perspective in ambulatory cardiovascular care in Germany and to explore the associations with patient-reported experience of cardiovascular prevention. METHODS: This cross-sectional observational study was performed in primary care practices in Germany. The study included patients with three recorded chronic diseases, including coronary heart disease. Continuity of care was measured with the Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire, which addresses personal/relational and team/cross-boundary continuity. From aspects of medical care and health-related lifestyle counselling a patient-reported experience of cardiovascular prevention index was formed with a range of 0-7. The association between continuity of care within the family practice and patient-reported experience of cardiovascular prevention was examined, using a linear multilevel regression model that adjusted for sociodemographics, structured care programme and numbers of contacts with the family practice. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty-five patients from 26 family practices participated. In a comparison between general practitioners (GPs) and cardiologists, higher values for relational continuity of care were given for GPs. Team/cross-boundary continuity for 'within the family practice' had a mean of 4.0 (standard deviation 0.7) and continuity between GPs and cardiologists a mean of 3.8 (standard deviation 0.7). Higher personal continuity of care for GPs was positively associated with patient-reported experience (b = 0.75, 95% CI 0.45-1.05, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there was high patient-reported continuity, which positively influenced the experience of cardiovascular prevention. Nevertheless, there is potential for improvement of personal continuity of the cardiologists and team/cross-boundary continuity between GPs and cardiologists. Structured care programs may be able to support this. TRIAL REGISTRATION: We registered the study prospectively on 7 November 2019 at the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) under ID no. DRKS00019219 .

Information exchange networks for chronic diseases in primary care practices in Germany: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Coordination of care requires information exchange between health workers. The structure of their information exchange networks may influence the quality and efficiency of healthcare delivery. The aim of this study was to explore and classify information exchange networks in primary care for patients with chronic diseases in Germany. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out between 2019 and 2021. As part of a larger project on coordination of care, this study focused on information exchange in practice teams regarding patients with type 2 diabetes (DM), coronary heart disease (CHD) and chronic heart failure (CHF). Social network analysis was applied to determine the number of connections, density and centralization for each of the health conditions for each of the practices. On the basis of the descriptive findings, we developed typologies of information exchange networks in primary care practices. RESULTS: We included 153 health workers from 40 practices, of which 25 practices were included in the social network analysis. Four types of information exchange structures were identified for the three chronic diseases: highly connected networks with low hierarchy, medium connected networks with medium hierarchy, medium connected networks with low hierarchy and lowly connected networks. Highly connected networks with low hierarchy were identified most frequently (18 networks for DM, 17 for CHD and 14 for CHF). Of the three chronic conditions, information sharing about patients with DM involved the most team members. Information exchange outside the family practice took place mainly with nurses and pharmacists. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified four types of information exchange structures, which provides a practical tool for management and improvement in primary care. Some practices had few information transfer connections and could hardly be considered a network. TRIAL REGISTRATION: We registered the study prospectively on 7 November 2019 at the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS, www.drks.de ) under ID no. DRKS00019219.

Effects of personalized invitation letters on research participation among general practitioners: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Participation of general practitioners is crucial for health care studies. However, recruiting them is an ongoing challenge and participation rates of general practitioners around the globe are often low. One feasible and cost-efficient approach to potentially enhance participation rates among general practitioners are personalized invitation letters, since they may increase one's attention to and appreciation of a study. Still, evidence whether this method actually affects participation is scarce and ambiguous in relation to physicians. METHODS: We undertook a randomized trial in a sample of general practitioners from three German states in the context of a large, observational study on physicians' coordination and uptake of recommended cardiovascular ambulatory care. An intervention group (n = 757 general practitioners) received a personalized invitation to participate in the observational study, the control group (n = 754 general practitioners) received a generic invitation. Both groups were blinded to group assignment. Eventual participation rates as well as the number and types of responses overall were compared between arms. Besides the main intervention, sociodemographic and geographical context factors were considered as well. RESULTS: The overall participation rate among physicians was 2.6% (2.8% in the intervention group and 2.4% in the control group). No statistically significant effect of personalization on participation of physicians was found (relative risk to participate when receiving a personalized invitation of 1.17 [95%-CI: 0.62, 2.21]). However, the number of responses to the invitation varied significantly between the geographical regions. CONCLUSIONS: Personalization of first written contact alone did not improve research participation among general practitioners, which was overall very low. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study in which the trial was embedded has been registered prospectively at the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) under registration number DRKS00019219 .

Influences on Physicians' Participation in Coordinated Ambulatory Cardiology Care: A Mixed-Methods Study.

INTRODUCTION: In 2009 a managed care programme for coordinated ambulatory cardiology care was established in Southern Germany. Designed as a voluntary contract between health insurers and ambulatory medical specialists, it aims for a guideline-oriented, efficient health care by general practitioners and medical specialists. In this study, we aimed to identify factors associated with physicians' participation and their relation to the aims of the programme. METHODS: A mixed-methods study was designed. We conducted semi-structured interviews with a sample of 21 specialists participating and 11 specialists not participating in the programme. Structured questionnaires were sent to all eligible medical specialists, of whom 75 specialists participating and 21 specialists not participating in the programme responded. Both the interview and questionnaire covered a range of questions on the participation and implementation of the program. RESULTS: Financial benefits were the most frequently named reason to participate. Other prevalent motives were the prospect of an alternative to regular health care, expected diagnostic possibilities and recommendations from peers. Reasons for not participating were mainly structural, such as technical modifications as well as economic investments and fear for one's professional autonomy. CONCLUSION: Physicians' participation in the programme was mainly financially driven and largely unrelated to its care-related aims. Still, it is unclear if these divergences between motivation to participate and aims of a managed care programme affect its eventual impact, hence further research is required.

Cooperation networks of ambulatory health care providers: exploration of mechanisms that influence coordination and uptake of recommended cardiovascular care (ExKoCare): a mixed-methods study protocol.

BACKGROUND: As the number of elderly and multimorbid patients increases, healthcare has become more complex. This requires good coordination of treatment and care given the various  health care professionals involved (e.g. general practitioners, medical specialists, physicians' assistants). Lack of coordination jeopardizes seamless, evidence-based treatment and care, and eventually reduces clinical effectiveness. The aim of the study is a) to describe and explore information transfer and interprofessional collaboration in ambulatory cardiac care, b) to describe and explore the role of provider networks from the perspective of patients and providers, focusing on healthcare coordination and the uptake of recommended practices. METHODS: Two related studies are planned: a) an observational study of healthcare provider networks, involving 600 patients with chronic (atherosclerosis-related) cardiovascular disease from 40 general practices and up to 320 healthcare providers (general practitioners, medical specialist, physicians' assistants), and b) a qualitative interview study with up to 80 healthcare professionals and patients. Furthermore, we will analyse claims data of a large German health insurer to explore provider networks in ambulatory cardiac care. DISCUSSION: The project aims to provide insight into factors, processes and mechanisms of information transfer and interprofessional collaboration, which affect seamless, evidence-based healthcare practice. This will contribute to the design of strategies for improving health care practice and to the development of measures of coordination for future research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: We registered the study prospectively on 7 November 2019 at the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS, www.drks.de) under ID no. DRKS00019219 .

Implementing coordinated ambulatory cardiology care in southern Germany: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: In 2009 health insurers AOK and Bosch BKK introduced the "FacharztProgramm Kardiologie" - a program for coordinated ambulatory cardiology care in the German state of Baden-Württemberg. It aims for efficient, medical guideline-oriented cardiology care to reduce avoidable hospitalizations as well as costs of care. A high number of cardiologists participate and the program has served as blueprint for programs in other medical fields. With many prerequisites and conditions involved, its implementation cannot be expected to be self-directed. Still, only little data on the actual implementation exists. We aimed to determine to what extent medical specialists and cooperating general practitioners implemented the program, which components they adapted, and which contextual factors they deemed relevant. METHODS: We collected data from primary care practices of medical specialists and general practitioners within Baden-Württemberg. Qualitative data was obtained through structured telephone interviews with participating and non-participating medical specialists as well as general practitioners cooperating with the program and general practitioners not cooperating. Interviews were analyzed through content-structuring qualitative content analyses via MAXQDA. Quantitative data was obtained using anonymous written questionnaires completed by participating and non-participating medical specialists as well as general practitioners cooperating with the program. Analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics, mainly with regard to differences within and between groups of physicians. RESULTS: Most components of the program regarding medical care were well implemented. However, access to medical care was not completely as intended due to high numbers of patients participating in the program and prioritization by physicians. Procedures for communication and cooperation between medical specialists and general practitioners were only partially adhered to and standardized communication was not implemented. A range of regional and practice-related contextual factors influenced implementation and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of this program was mixed. Contextual factors posed individual challenges to participating physicians which can't be captured by an encompassing program. Both control mechanisms and tailoring of the program to medical care seem needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Though not a clinical study, we deemed registration appropriate to ensure transparency. The study has been registered as a non-interventional observation study at the German Clinical Trials Register under ID: DRKS00013070.