Establishing a standing patient advisory board in family practice research: A qualitative evaluation from patients' and researchers' perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: Patient and public involvement is vital for high-quality research. Integrating patients' and providers' perspectives early in research enhances the feasibility and relevance of study results. Within our family practice-based research network ForN, we established a standing patient advisory board (PAB) to include patients with diverse conditions and experiences. In this paper, we aim to describe the establishment and functioning of a standing PAB in family medicine research from patients' and researchers' perspectives. METHODS: After each PAB meeting, patients and researchers were asked to name anonymously positive and challenging moments in a feedback form with open questions. Researchers were also asked to reflect on how they implemented the discussion content in their research projects. The responses from both groups were transferred to MAXQDA 2018 and analyzed separately using thematic analysis. RESULTS: We analyzed 40 feedback forms from patients and 14 feedback forms from researchers. The dominant theme in the patients' feedback was 'exchange': They positively emphasized the 'exciting and open discussions' and the exchange of perspectives with one another and researchers. The clarity of the researchers' presentations and the research topics were appreciated. Researchers also positively highlighted the open atmosphere of the discussions. Presenting their research to the PAB helped most researchers reflect on their research topics from patients' perspectives and implement changes. However, researchers also mentioned several barriers to the implementation of PAB members' feedback. CONCLUSION: The establishment of a standing PAB in family practice research is feasible and productive both from patients' and researchers' perspectives. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study reports the evaluation of the establishment of a standing PAB in family practice research. Board members are involved in the design of studies, the co-production of interventions and information material, and the interpretation of data.

Informational continuity of medication management in transitions of care: Qualitative interviews with stakeholders from the HYPERION-TransCare study.

BACKGROUND: The transition of patients between inpatient and outpatient care can lead to adverse events and medication-related problems due to medication and communication errors, such as medication discontinuation, the frequency of (re-)hospitalizations, and increased morbidity and mortality. Older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy are particularly at high risk during transitions of care. Previous research highlighted the need for interventions to improve transitions of care in order to support information continuity, coordination, and communication. The HYPERION-TransCare project aims to improve the continuity of medication management for older patients during transitions of care. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Using a qualitative design, 32 expert interviews were conducted to explore the perspectives of key stakeholders, which included healthcare professionals, patients and one informal caregiver, on transitions of care. Interviews were conducted between October 2020 and January 2021, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using content analysis. We narratively summarized four main topics (stakeholders' tasks, challenges, ideas for solutions and best practice examples, and patient-related factors) and mapped them in a patient journey map. Lacking or incomplete information on patients' medication and health conditions, inappropriate communication and collaboration between healthcare providers within and across settings, and insufficient digital support limit the continuity of medication management. CONCLUSIONS: The study confirms that medication management during transitions of care is a complex process that can be compromised by a variety of factors. Legal requirements and standardized processes are urgently needed to ensure adequate exchange of information and organization of medication management before, during and after hospital admissions. Despite the numerous barriers identified, the findings indicate that involved healthcare professionals from both the inpatient and outpatient care settings have a common understanding.

Implementation and evaluation of a complex intervention to improve information availability at the interface between inpatient and outpatient care in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy (HYPERION-TransCare) - study protocol for a pilot and feasibility cluster-randomized controlled trial in general practice in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Despite attempts to improve the cross-sectoral flow of information, difficulties remain in routine healthcare. The resulting negative impact on continuity of care is often associated with poor health outcomes, especially in older patients. Our intervention aims to increase information availability with respect to medications and health conditions at the interface between inpatient and outpatient care and to contribute towards improving the quality of care in older patients. This pilot study focuses on feasibility and implementability. METHODS: The idea of the complex intervention has been developed in a previous study. This intervention will be tested in a prospective, multicenter, cluster-randomized (via web tool), controlled pilot trial with two parallel study arms (intervention and control group). The pilot study will be conducted in 20 general practices in Hesse and Saxony (Germany) and include 200 patients (≥ 65 years of age with multimorbidity and polypharmacy) recruited by the practices. Practice staff and patients will be blinded. We will use qualitative and quantitative methods to assess the feasibility and implementability of the intervention and the study design in a process evaluation covering topics ranging from expectations to experiences. In addition, the feasibility of proposed outcome parameters for the future definitive trial will be explored. The composite endpoint will include health-related patient outcomes (hospitalization, falls, and mortality using, e.g., the FIMA questionnaire), and we will assess information on medications (SIMS questionnaire), symptoms and side effects of the medication (pro-CTCAE questionnaire), and health literacy (HLQ questionnaire). Data will be collected at study begin (baseline) and after 6 months. Furthermore, the study will include surveys and interviews with patients, general practitioners, and healthcare assistants. DISCUSSION: The intervention was developed using a participatory approach involving stakeholders and patients. It aims to empower general practice teams as they provide patient-centered care and play a key role in the coordination and continuity of care. We aim to encourage patients to adopt an active role in their health care. Overall, we want to increase the availability of health-related information for patients and healthcare providers. The results of the pilot study will be used in the design and implementation of the future definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered in DRKS-German Clinical Trials Register: registration number DRKS00027649 (date: 19 January 2022). Date and version identifier 10.07.2023; Version 1.3.

[SaxoForN-a transregional primary care research network in Dresden and Frankfurt am Main : Design of a practice-based research infrastructure]. / SaxoForN ­ Transregionales allgemeinmedizinisches Forschungspraxennetz Dresden und Frankfurt am Main : Konzept einer innovativen Forschungspraxeninfrastruktur.

Establishing primary care research networks (PCRNs) makes it easier to conduct clinical trials and health services research in a general-practice setting. Since February 2020, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) has sponsored the development of six PCRNs and a coordination unit throughout Germany, with the aim of setting up a sustainable outpatient research infrastructure to raise the quantity and quality of primary care.The present article describes the design of a PCRN in Dresden and Frankfurt am Main - SaxoForN - and explains its structure and how it operates. The network is a transregional alliance between the two regional PCRNs named "SaxoN" (Dresden/Saxony) and "ForN" (Frankfurt am Main/Hesse), both of which run transregional and local research projects. For this purpose, joint standards and harmonized structures, for example with respect to the data infrastructure, qualifications, participation, and accreditation, were agreed upon and implemented at both sites.A critical success factor will be whether and to what extent the standards and structures, as well as resource planning, can be designed sustainably enough to permit the PCRNs to carry out high-quality research over the long term. To achieve this, the PCRNs will have to attract new practices and build up lasting relationships with them, qualify the research practices in order to standardize processes as far as possible, and regularly document their basic information and healthcare data.

[Coordinated primary care of older patients with complex needs. The perspective of family doctors in the light of a case management project within practice networks of independent physicians in Germany]. / Koordinierte Versorgung geriatrischer Patientinnen und Patienten aus ärztlicher Sicht: Erfahrungen aus einem kontrollierten Modellversuch in zertifizierten Praxisnetzen.

BACKGROUND: Cross-sectoral and interdisciplinary care and case management can contribute to an improved integration of the primary care for patients with geriatric characteristics. Following this approach, the pilot study RubiN (Regional ununterbrochen betreut im Netz / Continuous Care in Regional Networks) implemented a specific geriatric Care and Case Management (CCM) in five certified practice networks of independent physicians in different regions in Germany. As part of the accompanying process-based evaluation of the project, a survey was conducted among general practitioners and other specialists from these networks in order to find out how, in their view, collaboration with case managers can improve medical care of geriatric patients and contribute to closing possible gaps in primary care structures. METHODS: The overall project RubiN, which was designed as a pragmatic controlled trial, compared patients from five practice networks where CCM has been implemented (intervention networks), with patients from three networks where the intervention was not taking place (control networks). Physicians of all eight participating practice networks were included in the present survey. The survey was conducted via a self-developed questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 111 physicians participated in the survey, 76 of whom were part of an intervention network and 35 part of a control network. The calculated response rate was 15.4% (networks reported a total of approx. 720 members). 91,1% of the participants from intervention networks, who had joined RubiN with their patients, reported satisfaction with their collaboration with case managers (n=41 of 45). 87.0% of the physicians from intervention networks stated that care for geriatric patients had improved as a result of their participation in the pilot study (n=40 of 46). When asked about the overall quality of care provided for their geriatric patients, the assessments of participants from intervention networks were more positive than those of the participants from control networks (MV 3.48 vs. 3.27 on a scale of 1=poor to 5=very good). Agreement with whether external case managers could provide certain services was higher among participants from intervention networks compared to participants from control networks. This was the case, in particular, of services related to medical data collection and test procedures. Overall, both comparison groups showed a high level of willingness to delegate tasks to a CCM. DISCUSSION: Delegation of tasks to geriatric case managers seems to be more readily accepted by physicians in intervention networks than by their colleagues from the control networks, especially as regards medical assessment methods and advanced advisory tasks. The results suggest that interventions in this domain were able to convince physicians of the value that case managers can bring to medical practice and help resolve reservations and skepticism. Especially, the implemented CCM seemed to be an effective way of generating geriatric anamnestic data and fostering the flow of general patient-centered information. CONCLUSION: From the point of view of general practitioners and other specialists participating in the intervention, CCM has been successfully implemented in their practice networks and seems to be a worthwhile approach that will help provide better coordinated and more team-oriented care to their geriatric patients.

Gender Differences in Perceived Working Conditions of General Practitioners During the COVID-19 Pandemic-a Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has revealed gender-specific differences between general practitioners in adapting to the posed challenges. As primary care workforce is becoming increasingly female, in many countries, it is essential to take a closer look at gender-specific influences when the global health care system is confronted with a crisis. OBJECTIVE: To explore gender-specific differences in the perceived working conditions and gender-specific differences in challenges facing GPs at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. DESIGN: Online survey in seven countries. PARTICIPANTS: 2,602 GPs from seven countries (Austria, Australia, Switzerland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Slovenia). Of the respondents, 44.4% (n = 1,155) were women. MAIN MEASURES: Online survey. We focused on gender-specific differences in general practitioners' perceptions of working conditions at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. KEY RESULTS: Female GPs rated their skills and self-confidence significantly lower than male GPs (f: 7.1, 95%CI: 6.9-7.3 vs. m: 7.6, 95%CI 7.4-7.8; p < .001), and their perceived risk (concerned about becoming infected or infecting others) higher than men (f: 5.7, 95%CI: 5.4-6.0 vs. m: 5.1, 95%CI: 4.8-5.5; p = .011). Among female GPs, low self-confidence in the treatment of COVID-19 patients appear to be common. Results were similar in all of the participating countries. CONCLUSIONS: Female and male GPs differed in terms of their self-confidence when dealing with COVID-19-related issues and their perceptions of the risks arising from the pandemic. To ensure optimal medical care, it is important that GPs realistically assess their own abilities and overall risk.

Digital participatory workshops with patients and health professionals to develop an intervention for the management of polypharmacy: results from a mixed-methods evaluation and methodological conclusions.

BACKGROUND: In the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous researchers postponed their patient and public involvement (PPI) activities. This was mainly due to assumptions on patients' willingness and skills to participate digitally. In fact, digital PPI workshops differ from in-person meetings as some forms of non-verbal cues and body language may be missing and technical barriers may exist. Within our project HYPERION-TransCare we adapted our PPI workshop series for intervention development to a digital format and assessed whether these digital workshops were feasible for patients, health care professionals and researchers. METHODS: We used a digital meeting tool that included communication via audio, video and chat. Discussions were documented simultaneously on a digital white board. Technical support was provided via phone and chat during the workshops and with a technical introduction workshop in advance. The workshop evaluation encompassed observation protocols, participants' feedback via chat after each workshop on their chance to speak and the usability of the digital tools, and telephone interviews on patients' and health professionals' experiences after the end of the workshop series. RESULTS: Observation protocols showed an active role of moderators in verbally encouraging every participant to get involved. Technical challenges occurred, but were in most cases immediately addressed and solved. Participants median rating of their chance to speak and the usability of the digital tool was "very good". In the evaluation interviews participants reported a change of perspective and mutual understanding as a main benefit from the PPI workshops and described the atmosphere as inclusive and on equal footing. Benefits of the digital format such as overcoming geographical distance, saving time and combining workshop participation with professional or childcare obligations were reported. Technical support was stressed as a pre-condition for getting actively involved in digital PPI. CONCLUSIONS: Digital formats using different didactic and documentation techniques, accompanied by technical support, can foster active patient and public involvement. The advantages of digital PPI formats such as geographical flexibility and saving time for participants as well as the opportunity to prepare and hold workshops in geographically stretched research teams persists beyond the pandemic and may in some cases outweigh the advantages of in-person communication.

Digital patient and public involvement (PPI) activities differ from in-person meetings. For example, some forms of non-verbal cues and body language are limited and technical barriers may exist. Therefore, some research teams were hesitant to switch to a digital PPI format during the COVID-19 pandemic and postponed their PPI activities.In this paper, we aim to describe, how we adapted a PPI workshop series to a digital format, how patients and health care professionals experienced these digital workshops, and which conclusions we have drawn for future digital PPI activities. The workshop evaluation encompassed workshop observation protocols, participants' feedback via chat on their chance to speak and the feasibility of the digital tools, and telephone interviews on participants' experiences.The study results showed that moderators had an active role in verbally encouraging every participant to get involved. Technical challenges occurred, but were in most cases immediately addressed and solved. Most participants rated their chance to speak and the feasibility of the digital format as "very good". They described the atmosphere as inclusive and on equal footing without hierarchy between different stakeholder groups. Participants reported benefits of the digital format such as overcoming geographical distance, saving time and combining workshop participation with professional or childcare obligations. They stressed technical support as a condition for getting actively involved in digital PPI.We conclude that some advantages of digital PPI may persist beyond the pandemic. Therefore, we encourage research teams to discuss the question of digital or in-person PPI with the involved patients and health professionals and decide on a case-by-case basis.

Development of an intervention to improve informational continuity of care in older patients with polypharmacy at the interface between general practice and hospital care: protocol for a participatory qualitative study in Germany.

INTRODUCTION: Older patients with multimorbidity, polypharmacy and related complex care needs represent a growing proportion of the population and a challenge for healthcare systems. Particularly in transitional care (hospital admission and hospital discharge), medical errors, inappropriate treatment, patient concerns and lack of confidence in healthcare are major problems that may arise from a lack of information continuity. The aim of this study is to develop an intervention to improve informational continuity of care at the interface between general practice and hospital care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A qualitative approach will be used to develop our participatory intervention. Overall, 32 semistructured interviews with relevant stakeholders will be conducted and analysed. The stakeholders will include healthcare professionals from the outpatient setting (general practitioners, healthcare assistants, ambulatory care nurses) and the inpatient setting (clinical doctors, nurses, pharmacists, clinical information scientists) as well as patients and informal caregivers. At a series of workshops based on the results of the stakeholder analyses, we aim to develop a participatory intervention that will then be implemented in a subsequent pilot study. The same stakeholder groups will be invited for participation in the workshops. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this study was waived by the Ethics Committee of Goethe University Frankfurt because of the nature of the proposed study. Written informed consent will be obtained from all study participants prior to participation. Results will be tested in a pilot study and disseminated at (inter)national conferences and via publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTATION NUMBER: Clinical Trials Register: registration number DRKS00027649.

COVI-Prim Longitudinal Survey: Experiences of Primary Care Physicians During the Early Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: General practitioners (GPs) are the mainstay of primary care and play a critical role in pandemics. During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, this international study aimed to explore changes in the workload of general practitioners, as well as their interactions with patients and colleagues, and their self-confidence and concerns. Methods: An online survey was conducted among GPs in Austria and Germany. Participants were asked to answer a basic questionnaire and participate in a subsequent longitudinal survey containing closed and open-ended items. All data were pseudonymized. Results: Overall, 723 general practitioners from Austria and Germany took part in the longitudinal survey over a period of 12 weeks (April 3-July 2, 2020). The majority of GPs had less direct contact with patients at the beginning of the survey (96 vs. 49% at the end of the study period). At first, doctors were mainly concerned with pandemic-related issues and had to care for the patients of GP colleagues that were in quarantine, which meant they had less time for routine work such as screenings and treating chronic diseases. Over the survey period, GPs' self-confidence increased and their concerns about income loss decreased. Conclusions: Following a difficult initial phase when protective equipment and information were lacking, physicians in primary care adapted quickly to new situations. Experience with telemedicine should help them face future challenges and may help prevent a decline in the delivery of routine health care and care for chronically ill patients. Registration: Trial registration at the German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00021231.

The moderating effects of social support and depressive symptoms on pain among elderly multimorbid patients-data from the multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study MultiCare.

OBJECTIVES: Depressive symptoms and chronic pain are common among patients with multimorbidity creating a complex medical condition for both the patient and the general practitioner. Perceived social support may function as a protective measure.To examine the impact of perceived social support as a potential moderator between depressive symptoms and pain intensity and pain disability in daily activities in multimorbid patients aged 75+. METHOD: Data from 3,189 patients of the German longitudinal cohort study MultiCare were obtained at baseline and follow-ups during 5 years. Multilevel linear mixed-effects analyses were conducted for pain intensity (model 1) and pain disability in daily activities (model 2). The interaction term social support by depression score was included to test for moderation. RESULTS: The interaction between social support and depressive symptoms was significantly associated with the pain intensity score 0.41 (SE=.17; 95-CI[.08;.74]) but not with the pain disability score 0.35 (SE=.19; 95-CI[-.01;.72]). Additionally, men and individuals with medium or higher educational level showed reduced pain intensity and disability scores. Pain disability scores increased with age and depressive symptoms. Increased pain scores were also found for body mass index and burden of multimorbidity. CONCLUSION: Perceived social support amplified the association of depressive symptoms on pain intensity and did not show a protective function. The high scores of perceived social support among the participants may point to the practice of secondary gain due to the patients immense health burden.

Predictors of change in depressive symptoms in older and multimorbid patients: a longitudinal analysis of the multicare cohort.

BACKGROUND: Depression in older adults is becoming an increasing concern. As depressive symptoms change over time, it is important to understand the determinants of change in depressive symptoms. The aim of our study is to use a longitudinal study design to explore the predictors of change, remission and incident depression in older patients with multimorbidity. METHODS: Data from the MultiCare cohort study were used. The cohort studied 3,189 multimorbid general practice patients aged 65-85. Data were collected during personal interviews. Depressive symptoms were assessed using the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15). Predictors of change in depressive symptoms were determined using multivariate linear regression, while multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze predictors of remission and incident depression. Models included depressive symptoms at baseline and follow-up, socio-demographics and data on health status and social support. RESULTS: Overall, 2,746 participants with complete follow-up data were analyzed. Mean age was 74.2 years, 59.2% were female, and 11.3% were classified as depressed at baseline. Burden of multimorbidity and social support were statistically significant predictors in all regression analyses. Further predictors of change in depressive symptoms were: income, pain, nursing grade, self-rated health and self-efficacy. LIMITATIONS: The sample size for prediction of remission limited statistical certainty. Assessment of depressive symptoms using GDS-15 differs from routine clinical diagnoses of depression. CONCLUSIONS: Predictors of change in depressive symptoms in older multimorbid patients are similar to those predicting remission and incident depression, and do not seem to differ significantly from other older patient populations with depressive symptoms.

COVI-Prim international: Similarities and discrepancies in the way general practices from seven different countries coped with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objectives: General practitioners (GPs) are frequently patients' first point of contact with the healthcare system and play an important role in identifying, managing and monitoring cases. This study investigated the experiences of GPs from seven different countries in the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. Design: International cross-sectional online survey. Setting: General practitioners from Australia, Austria, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Slovenia and Switzerland. Participants: Overall, 1,642 GPs completed the survey. Main outcome measures: We focused on how well-prepared GPs were, their self-confidence and concerns, efforts to control the spread of the disease, patient contacts, information flow, testing procedures and protection of staff. Results: GPs gave high ratings to their self-confidence (7.3, 95% CI 7.1-7.5) and their efforts to control the spread of the disease (7.2, 95% CI 7.0-7.3). A decrease in the number of patient contacts (5.7, 95% CI 5.4-5.9), the perception of risk (5.3 95% CI 4.9-5.6), the provision of information to GPs (4.9, 95% CI 4.6-5.2), their testing of suspected cases (3.7, 95% CI 3.4-3.9) and their preparedness to face a pandemic (mean: 3.5; 95% CI 3.2-3.7) were rated as moderate. GPs gave low ratings to their ability to protect staff (2.2 95% CI 1.9-2.4). Differences were identified in all dimensions except protection of staff, which was consistently low in all surveyed GPs and countries. Conclusion: Although GPs in the different countries were confronted with the same pandemic, its impact on specific aspects differed. This partly reflected differences in health care systems and experience of recent pandemics. However, it also showed that the development of structured care plans in case of future infectious diseases requires the early involvement of primary care representatives.

[Predictors of job satisfaction among health care assistants]. / Einflussgrößen auf die Arbeitszufriedenheit von Medizinischen Fachangestellten.

INTRODUCTION: Against a background of falling staff levels, rising care needs and the expectation that health care assistants (HCAs) are to be more actively involved in the provision of health care in the future, job satisfaction plays an important role in motivating HCAs to pursue the profession over the long term. QUESTION: How satisfied are HCAs with various aspects of their work and what socio-demographic factors have an influence on job satisfaction? METHODS: The data analysed was obtained from six different research projects (2011-2017). In all the projects, the job satisfaction of HCAs was surveyed using a standardised seven-step Warr-Cook-Wall questionnaire. The analysis of the 10 items was carried out both descriptively and using ordinal regression analysis to identify predictors. RESULTS: Total of 2,371 HCAs were satisfied with their job situation (mean 5.2± 1.6), whereby satisfaction was lowest with regard to salary (mean 3.73± 1.9) and employee recognition (mean 4.76± 1.8). HCAs that had completed additional training to become specially qualified Health Care Assistants in the Family Practice (VERAH) or Non-physician Practice Assistants (NPA) (n=452) were more satisfied in their jobs in almost all respects, compared to health care assistants that had no additional qualification (n=1,676) (mean 5.67± 1.4 vs. 5.16± 1.5, p Ë‚ 0.00). Overall satisfaction was positively influenced by higher age, qualification as a VERAH/NPA, higher workload, and urban location of the practice. CONCLUSION: Measures to raise the attractiveness of the profession of HCA might include an increase in possibilities to undergo additional training, appropriate remuneration and adequate employee recognition. In this way, the largest occupational group in outpatient care could be provided with a satisfactory professional future.

Comparison of FORTA, PRISCUS and EU(7)-PIM lists on identifying potentially inappropriate medication and its impact on cognitive function in multimorbid elderly German people in primary care: a multicentre observational study.

OBJECTIVES: Our study aimed to assess the frequency of potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use (according to three PIM lists) and to examine the association between PIM use and cognitive function among participants in the MultiCare cohort. DESIGN: MultiCare is conducted as a longitudinal, multicentre, observational cohort study. SETTING: The MultiCare study is located in eight different study centres in Germany. PARTICIPANTS: 3189 patients (59.3% female). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The study had a cross-sectional design using baseline data from the German MultiCare study. Prescribed and over-the-counter drugs were classified using FORTA (Fit fOR The Aged), PRISCUS (Latin for 'time-honoured') and EU(7)-PIM lists. A mixed-effect multivariate linear regression was performed to calculate the association between PIM use patients' cognitive function (measured with (LDST)). RESULTS: Patients (3189) used 2152 FORTA PIM (mean 0.9±1.03 per patient), 936 PRISCUS PIM (0.3±0.58) and 4311 EU(7)-PIM (1.4±1.29). The most common FORTA PIM was phenprocoumon (13.8%); the most prevalent PRISCUS PIM was amitriptyline (2.8%); the most common EU(7)-PIM was omeprazole (14.0%). The lists rate PIM differently, with an overall overlap of 6.6%. Increasing use of PIM is significantly associated with reduced cognitive function that was detected with a correlation coefficient of -0.60 for FORTA PIM (p=0.002), -0.72 for PRISCUS PIM (p=0.025) and -0.44 for EU(7)-PIM (p=0.005). CONCLUSION: We identified PIM using FORTA, PRISCUS and EU(7)-PIM lists differently and found that PIM use is associated with cognitive impairment according to LDST, whereby the FORTA list best explained cognitive decline for the German population. These findings are consistent with a negative impact of PIM use on multimorbid elderly patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN89818205.

"A real eye opener" - development, implementation and evaluation of a seminar on interprofessional teamwork in GP specialty training.

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.

COVI-Prim survey: Challenges for Austrian and German general practitioners during initial phase of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) represents a significant challenge to health care systems around the world. A well-functioning primary care system is crucial in epidemic situations as it plays an important role in the development of a system-wide response. METHODS: 2,187 Austrian and German GPs answered an internet survey on preparedness, testing, staff protection, perception of risk, self-confidence, a decrease in the number of patient contacts, and efforts to control the spread of the virus in the practice during the early phase of the COVID-pandemic (3rd to 30th April). RESULTS: The completion rate of the questionnaire was high (90.9%). GPs gave low ratings to their preparedness for a pandemic, testing of suspected cases and efforts to protect staff. The provision of information to GPs and the perception of risk were rated as moderate. On the other hand, the participants rated their self-confidence, a decrease in patient contacts and their efforts to control the spread of the disease highly. CONCLUSION: Primary care is an important resource for dealing with a pandemic like COVID-19. The workforce is confident and willing to take an active role, but needs to be provided with the appropriate surrounding conditions. This will require that certain conditions are met. REGISTRATION: Trial registration at the German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00021231.

RubiN - continuous care in regional networks: a study protocol for a prospective controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The health care situation of geriatric patients is often multifaceted, complex and often overlaps with social living conditions. Due to the lack of cross-sectoral and interprofessional health care geriatric patients often, receive insufficient care. Only a holistic view enables a comprehensive evaluation of the complex health risks, but also the potential to preserve the health of geriatric patients. The implementation of cross-sectoral, multi-professional case management could reduce the gaps in care, improve the autonomy of the geriatric patients in their own homes, and allow them to retain it as long as possible. The "RubiN" project examines the effects of multi-professional, cross-sectoral and assessment-based case management on the quality of the care of geriatric patients. The results of the study aim to show whether geriatric patients receive better care using case management than patients who receive standard health care. In addition, data on the effects of case management on practices of general practitioners (GP), the satisfaction with the care concept amongst the case managers, patients and relatives will be collected. Furthermore, a health economic analysis will be carried out. METHODS: The project is designed as a prospective controlled study and compares geriatric patients from practice networks in different regions in Germany. Inclusion criteria are: Age ≥ 70 years and care requirements from two different care complexes (identified with the screening instrument 'Angelina'-questionnaire). The intervention is the use of a geriatric case management, where health care is organised based on patient-specific care requirements. Five practice networks of physicians will implement the intervention (n = 3200 patients) and three practice networks will serve as the control group (n = 1200 patients). The primary endpoint is the ability to manage activities of daily living, measured using the Barthel Index. The patients in the intervention group receive geriatric case management and the patients in the control networks receive standard care ("care as usual"). The analysis of the primary data, which is pseudonymised, occurs according to the intention-to-treat principle. For this purpose, the endpoints will be analysed using a group comparison after 12 months. For the health economic analysis, secondary data from the statutory health insurance providers will be included in the analysis, in addition to the primary data. Data for the analysis of the effects the concept has on the GP practices as well as on the satisfaction of the project participants will be collected with questionnaires and interviews with experts. DISCUSSION: The implementation of cross-sectoral and interdisciplinary geriatric case management has been a topic of discussion for years, whereby positive effects have already been-shown. This planned study will be the first evaluation of the effect of case management for geriatric patients with a very large sample. In addition, the effects of case management on the GP practices and also on the relatives of the geriatric patients will be shown. It is intended that the study results pave the way for a widespread implementation of this concept. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register, ID: DRKS00016642 . Registered on 29 October 2019 - Retrospectively registered.

Anticholinergic drug burden according to the anticholinergic drug scale and the German anticholinergic burden and their impact on cognitive function in multimorbid elderly German people: a multicentre observational study.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of our study were to examine the anticholinergic drug use and to assess the association between anticholinergic burden and cognitive function in the multimorbid elderly patients of the MultiCare cohort. SETTING: MultiCare was conducted as a longitudinal cohort study in primary care, located in eight different study centres in Germany. PARTICIPANTS: 3189 patients (59.3% female). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Baseline data were used for the following analyses. Drugs were classified according to the well-established anticholinergic drug scale (ADS) and the recently published German anticholinergic burden (German ACB). Cognitive function was measured using a letter digit substitution test (LDST) and a mixed-effect multivariate linear regression was performed to calculate the influence of anticholinergic burden on the cognitive function. RESULTS: Patients used 1764 anticholinergic drugs according to ADS and 2750 anticholinergics according to the German ACB score (prevalence 38.4% and 53.7%, respectively). The mean ADS score was 0.8 (±1.3), and the mean German ACB score was 1.2 (±1.6) per patient. The most common ADS anticholinergic was furosemide (5.8%) and the most common ACB anticholinergic was metformin (13.7%). The majority of the identified anticholinergics were drugs with low anticholinergic potential: 80.2% (ADS) and 73.4% (ACB), respectively. An increasing ADS and German ACB score was associated with reduced cognitive function according to the LDST (-0.26; p=0.008 and -0.24; p=0.003, respectively). CONCLUSION: Multimorbid elderly patients are in a high risk for using anticholinergic drugs according to ADS and German ACB score. We especially need to gain greater awareness for the contribution of drugs with low anticholinergic potential from the cardiovascular system. As anticholinergic drug use is associated with reduced cognitive function in multimorbid elderly patients, the importance of rational prescribing and also deprescribing needs to be further evaluated. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN89818205.

[Interprofessional Care of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis from the Perspective of a General Practitioner Perspective: Results of a Cross-sectional Study]. / Interprofessionelle Versorgung von Patienten mit rheumatoider Arthritis aus hausärztlicher Sicht: Ergebnisse einer Querschnittserhebung.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners, specialists, occupational and physical therapists, nursing services and other professional groups are all involved in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. This study aims to describe interprofessional cooperation in daily ambulatory care from the perspective of a general practitioner. METHODS: The cross-sectional study investigated cooperation between general practitioners (n=121 in 68 medical practices) and several other health care providers in Hesse and Rhineland Palatinate, Germany, from February to September 2017. It was part of the prospective cohort study PANORA (Prevalence of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) positivity in patients with new onset of non-specific musculoskeletal symptoms). The questionnaire that was used contained closed-ended questions on socio-demographics and frequency of contact, and asked physicians to assess and weigh existing collaboration. Descriptive statistics were used for data analysis. RESULTS: When caring for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, 70%, of the physicians often took responsibility for synchronizing medications, and discussing diagnoses and test results. The most frequent cooperation was with rheumatologists and was considered as highly important but the least satisfactory. The second most frequent cooperation was with physical therapists and this was also rated as very important. Physicians had highest level of satisfaction with their collaboration with the nursing services. CONCLUSION: This study shows that general practitioners perform several medical tasks when treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis. During the process, they work together with several health care providers to various degrees. Cooperation with rheumatologists and physical therapists is particularly important to general practitioners; cooperation with rheumatologists is considered inadequate and in need of improvement.

Representation of patients with a migration background in studies on antithrombotic treatment. An analysis of recruitment data from a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The health status, health awareness and health behavior of persons with a migration background often differ from the autochthonous population. Little is known about the proportion of patients with a migration background (PMB) that participate in primary care studies on oral antithrombotic treatment (OAT) in Germany, and whether the quality of their antithrombotic care differs from patients without a migration background. The aim of this paper was to use the results of a cluster-randomized controlled trial (PICANT) to determine the proportion of PMB at different stages of recruitment, and to compare the results in terms of sociodemographic characteristics and antithrombotic treatment. METHODS: This study used screening and baseline data from the PICANT trial on oral anticoagulation management in GP practices. For this analysis, we determined the proportion of PMB during the recruitment period at stage 1 (screening of potentially eligible patients), stage 2 (eligible patients invited to participate in the trial), and stage 3 (assessment of baseline characteristics of patients participating in the PICANT trial). In addition, we compared patients in terms of sociodemographic characteristics and quality of anticoagulant treatment. Statistical analysis comprised descriptive and bivariate analyses. RESULTS: The proportion of PMB at each recruitment stage declined from 9.1% at stage 1 to 7.9% at stage 2 and 7.3% at stage 3). A lack of German language skills led to the exclusion of half the otherwise eligible PMB. At stages 1 and 3, PMB were younger (stage 1: 70.7 vs. 75.0 years, p<0.001; stage 3: 70.2 vs. 73.5 years, p = 0.013), but did not differ in terms of gender. The quality of their anticoagulant care was comparable (100.0% vs. 99.1% were receiving appropriate OAT, 94.4% vs. 95.7% took phenprocoumon, or warfarin, and the most recent INR measurement of 60.8% vs. 69.3% was within their individual INR range). CONCLUSIONS: In the potentially eligible population and among participants at baseline, the quality of anticoagulant care was high in all groups of patients, which is reassuring. To enable the inclusion of more PMB, future primary care research on OAT in Germany should address how best to overcome language barriers. This will be challenging, particularly because the heterogeneity of PMB means the resulting sample sizes for each specific language group are small. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41847489.