Search

Objectives: The rate of outpatient therapeutic curettage is lower in Germany than in other countries, although there are no differences in patient safety between outpatient and inpatient management. In this context, outpatient surgery is economically advantageous and efficient. This study aims to identify organisational and regional factors that determine the rate of outpatient curettage in German hospitals., Methods: We analysed the hospital quality reports for 2013-2019, which include data from all German hospitals with gynaecology departments (n=709). These organisational data (teaching status, size, ownership, department type and hospital group) are enhanced by contextual data (degree of urbanisation, market concentration and population income). We calculated a zero-one inflated beta regression model to identify factors that influence the rate of outpatient curettages in 2019., Results: Increasing numbers of curettages are provided on an outpatient basis; accordingly, the number of inpatient curettages declined during the analysis period. In 2019, 69.6% of in-hospital curettages were performed as outpatient surgery. Hospital size is significantly negative and outpatient physician department type is significantly positively associated with outpatient curettage rates. We found no effects of hospital ownership type, degree of urbanisation or market concentration. A high income in the surgical district's population is also associated with a higher rate of outpatient curettages., Conclusions: The analyses demonstrate that organisational factors are associated with the outpatient curettage rate. This indicates that external elements, such as reimbursements and regulations, influence outpatient surgical events in Germany, and current regulations do not incentivise hospitals to significantly increase their rate of outpatient curettages., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) means intravenous administration of antibiotics outside the hospital. The antibiotics are administered at the patient's home. The advantages are the shortening of the inpatient stay, which means that patients can remain in their familiar environment, the reduction of nosocomial infections as well as the reduction of hospital and therapy costs. Nevertheless, OPAT is rarely performed in Germany, despite its international application. Therefore, systematic data on OPAT are not available in Germany. The project objective is to investigate the medical care using OPAT under medical, epidemiological and economic aspects within the framework of the Cologne Network of Infectious Diseases., Methods and Analysis: Observational study with mixed-methods approach, qualitative analysis to identify physician-side factors to assess the attitude of general practitioners in Cologne with regard to possible implementation barriers of an OPAT. Longitudinal analysis of an OPAT patient cohort with respect to clinical and patient-relevant outcomes using descriptive and conclusive statistics., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Cologne, Germany (19-1284-1). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at one or more scientific conferences., Trial Registration Number: NCT04002453., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To set up a pragmatic Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle by analysing patient experiences and determinants of satisfaction with care in the last year of life., Design: Cross-sectional postbereavement survey., Setting: Regional health services research and development structure representing all health and social care providers involved in the last year of life in Cologne, a city with 1 million inhabitants in Germany., Participants: 351 bereaved relatives of adult decedents, representative for age and gender, accidental and suspicious deaths excluded., Results: For the majority (89%) of patients, home was the main place of care during their last year of life. Nevertheless, 91% of patients had at least one hospital admission and 42% died in hospital. Only 60% of informants reported that the decedent had been told that the disease was leading to death. Hospital physicians broke the news most often (58%), with their communication style often (30%) being rated as 'not sensitive'. Informants indicated highly positive experiences with care provided by hospices (89% 'good') and specialist palliative home care teams (87% 'good'). This proportion dropped to 41% for acute care hospitals, this rating being determined by the feeling of not being treated with respect and dignity (OR=23.80, 95% CI 7.503 to 75.498) and the impression that hospitals did not work well together with other services (OR=8.37, 95% CI 2.141 to 32.71)., Conclusions: Following those data, our regional priority for action now is improvement of care in acute hospitals, with two new projects starting, first, how to recognise and communicate a limited life span, and second, how to improve care during the dying phase. Results and further improvement projects will be discussed in a working group with the city of Cologne, and repeating this survey in 2 years will be able to measure regional achievements., Trial Registration Number: DRKS00011925., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: International standards of care require the complete integration of psycho-oncological care into biomedical cancer treatment. The structured integrated, cross-sectoral psycho-oncological programme 'isPO' is aiming to ensure a provision of care in inpatient and outpatient settings according to a stepped-care approach. Up to now, psycho-oncological care is missing regulated and standardised processes to demonstrate the effectiveness. This study protocol describes the process and outcome evaluation that is conducted, along with the isPO study. The programme evaluation is aiming to proof effectiveness, explain potential discrepancies between expected and observed outcomes. Additionally, provide insight into the implementation process, as well as contextual factors that might promote or inhibit the dissemination and implementation of the stepped care programme will be gained. In addition to these measures, a cost-consequence analysis will provide further evidence aimed at integrating psycho-oncological care into primary healthcare., Methods and Analysis: The evaluation concept is based on a tripartite strategy consisting of a prospective, formative and summative evaluation. To capture all determinants, a concurrent mixed-method design is applied comprising qualitative (interviews and focus groups) and quantitative (standardised questionnaires) surveys of patients and healthcare providers. In addition, analysis of the psycho-oncological care data (isPO care data) and statutory health insurance claims data will be conducted. Primary and secondary data will complement one another (data linkage) to obtain a more comprehensive picture of the effectiveness and implementation of the complex intervention within the isPO study., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has been approved by the ethics committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Cologne. For all collected data, the relevant national and European data protection regulations will be considered. All personal identifiers (eg, name, date of birth) will be pseudonymised. Dissemination strategies include annual reports as well as quality workshops for the organisations, the presentation of results in publications and on conferences, and public relations., Trial Registration Number: DRKS00015326; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Patients with end-stage kidney failure can be treated either by transplant or by dialysis, which can be administered as haemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD). Although they are equivalent therapeutic options in terms of mortality, the percentage of patients in Germany treated with PD is currently very low (∼6%) compared with other countries. The aim of our study is to analyse the factors behind this percentage and their relevance to the choice of dialysis treatment in Germany. This includes analyses of regional disparities in the provision of care for dialysis patients as well as the evaluations of costs and the influence of reimbursement structures. This approach should provide further insights to explain the variation in the usage of PD and HD and will help to define starting points for future interventions., Methods and Analysis: A mixed-methods approach will be applied to several data sources, including administrative data (ambulatory physicians' claim data, statutory health insurance claim data), quality assurance data from one of the largest German dialysis providers Kuratorium für Dialyse (KfH) and qualitative and quantitative survey data (patients, nephrologists and dialysis nurses). Qualitative data will be analysed content-analytically. Based on the quantitative data, multivariable analyses will be performed and, where possible, hierarchical models will be tested. This multidimensional approach will enable us to account for the different factors influencing the penetration of PD in Germany., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval (17-299) has been obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Cologne on 25 April 2018. National and international dissemination will be accomplished by informing healthcare practitioners, patients and professional organisations and other stakeholders via conferences, scientific and non-scientific publications and seminars., Trial Registration Number: DRKS00012555; Pre-Results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)