Search

Background: Recent analyses have shown that in health services research in Germany, healthcare organisations are often considered primarily as a study setting, without fully taking their complex organisational nature into account, neither theoretically nor methodologically. Therefore, an initiative was launched to analyse the state of Organisational Health Services Research (OHSR) in Germany and to develop a strategic framework and road map to guide future efforts in the field. This paper summarizes positions that have been jointly developed by consulting experts from the interdisciplinary and international scientific community., Methods: In July 2023, a scoping workshop over the course of three days was held with 32 (inter)national experts from different research fields centred around OHSR topics using interactive workshop methods. Participants discussed their perspectives on OHSR, analysed current challenges in OHSR in Germany and developed key positions for the field's development., Results: The seven agreed-upon key positions addressed conceptual and strategic aspects. There was consensus that the field required the development of a research agenda that can guide future efforts. On a conceptual level, the need to address challenges in terms of interdisciplinarity, terminology, organisation(s) as research subjects, international comparative research and utilisation of organisational theory was recognized. On a strategic level, requirements with regard to teaching, promotion of interdisciplinary and international collaboration, suitable funding opportunities and participatory research were identified., Conclusions: This position paper seeks to serve as a framework to support further development of OHSR in Germany and as a guide for researchers and funding organisations on how to move OHSR forward. Some of the challenges discussed for German OHSR are equally present in other countries. Thus, this position paper can be used to initiate fruitful discussions in other countries., Competing Interests: LA ist Vorstandsmitglied der DGMS und des DNVF. Sie ist Mitglied des Editorial Boards des Journal of Health Care Services and Implementation. JB erhält Fördermittel für mehrere OVF-Projekte in Australien und Europa. ME ist Vorsitzender der Society for Studies in Organizing Healthcare (SHOC). Die Arbeit des Instituts für Arbeitsmedizin, Sozialmedizin und Versorgungsforschung, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, wird durch einen zweckungebundenen Zuschuss des Arbeitgeberverbands der Metall- und Elektroindustrie Baden-Württemberg (Südwestmetall) unterstützt. Die übrigen Autor*innen erklären, dass keine Interessenkonflikte bestehen., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Introduction: Doctor-patient communication is one of the hallmarks of good medical treatment. Mutual understanding is of foremost importance, in particular when communicating non-numerical test results., Methods: Using a two-step approach, this study analyses the influence of wording on the correct understanding of medical test results by people without a medical background. In a first step, a qualitative analysis of physicians' letters helped to identify adjectives that are frequently used to communicate test results. In a second step, a parallel randomised study was conducted to test the comprehensibility of particularly relevant adjectives, combining the written communication of test results with a subsequent survey. 1,131 participants, representing the population of Germany with regard to age, gender, and educational level, were recruited via an online platform. The participants read a scenario involving the communication of the results of a breath test, whereby non-numerical test results were described as being either "positive" vs. "negative" (n=566) or "abnormal" vs. "normal" (n=565). Participant assignment to one of these groups took place in a randomised way. The outcomes measured included the subjective and objective understanding of test results as well as the participants' subjective comprehension of the physician communicating with them., Results: People without a medical background can understand medical test results more readily when neutral, descriptive adjectives are used rather than adjectives considered as being judgmental in everyday language. 54 % of the participants who read test results using the adjectives "positive" vs. "negative" and 65 % of the participants who read test results using the adjectives "abnormal" vs. "normal", respectively, understood the results correctly. This relative difference of 20.4 % in the number of participants with a correct understanding is statistically significant (Chi square=13.061; p=0.001). There was also a considerable difference in the subjective understanding (means of 5.04 of "positive" vs. "negative" and 5.47 for "abnormal" vs. "normal" on a 7-point Likert scale; absolute mean difference 0.42 [95 % CI: 0.20; 0.64]) as well as in the subjective comprehension of the communicating physician (means of 4.49 for "positive" vs. "negative" and 4.95 for "abnormal" vs. "normal" on a 7-point Likert scale; absolute mean difference 0.45 [95% CI: 0.23; 0.67]). A higher level of comprehension for the words "abnormal" vs. "normal" was consistent across the overall sample. It is mainly people with no school-leaving certificate and a lower educational level who benefit from the changed wording., Conclusions: In the process of communicating non-numerical medical test results, people without a medical background understand neutral, descriptive adjectives better than adjectives that are considered judgmental in everyday usage. A corresponding change of written and oral communication can easily be implemented by medical experts in their everyday practice and particularly supports a population group that already suffers disadvantages in the medical system., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

The German E. coli crisis in 2011 posed multifaceted challenges to the actors of the German health care system. This paper analyzes the outbreak from a multidisciplinary perspective. It offers best practices and general recommendations for future public health emergencies for hospitals as well as at the federal and local level, addressing medical practitioners as well as health care managers.