Search

Background: The MAAS Global () is an internationally widely-used instrument in under- and postgraduate medical education. The focus is on the assessment of medical communication and clinical skills. The assessment tool, which has also been used in Germany since 2015, has a high-quality design (e.g. comprehensible structure, appropriate complexity), good psychometric properties and is very user-friendly. An update of MAAS Global, MAAS 2.0, was published in March 2021 with a new and greater focus on context and the formative.Method: The revised version of the MAAS 2.0 assessment sheet was translated into German with the authors’ permission. Open questions were discussed with the revision process project manager. Results: The revision was carried out with a view to focusing on the patient’s frame of reference, removing ambiguities identified previously while using MAAS Global, and closer alignment with the underlying Calgary-Cambridge model. Furthermore, the scale used for the evaluation was modified and now uses a formative evaluation range without grade-related classification. Conclusion: With the content reorientation of MAAS Global to MAAS 2.0, and the associated focus on frame of reference, context, the formative, the revision presented here sets new priorities for future evaluations in the context of under- and postgraduate medical education and the assessment of medical patient communication in general.

Background: Since its academic inception in the 1960s, Germany's general practice has seen numerous dissertations, many of which are housed in the 'Archive of German language General Practice' (ADAM). Aim: This study aims to provide the first comprehensive overview of dissertation topics from the discipline of general- and family medicine in Germany, establishing a foundation for advancing research. Method: We employed a systematic review approach, examining 801 dissertations from both ADAM and online sources. Each topic was identified, categorized, and finalized through consensus by two independent reviewers. Results: Our analysis encompassed 486 dissertations from ADAM, 176 from the German national library, and 139 from university libraries. A total of 167 unique research topics were identified. The predominant themes included medical education (n = 49), medication orders (n = 39), frequent consultation issues (n = 33), complementary medicine (n = 32), and screening measures (n = 29). The use of qualitative methods was constantly rising, from no qualitative methods used from 1965–1974, up to 22% of dissertations in recent years. Conclusion: The diversity of 167 research topics underscores the vastness and complexity of general practice in Germany. This structured overview is pivotal for facilitating focused and interconnected research endeavors in the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is a discussion among general practitioners and psychiatrists regarding over-diagnosing versus under-reporting of psychiatric diagnoses. A deeper understanding of this topic is relevant for providing reasonable health care and for planning future studies. A crucial factor to understanding this discussion is the difference in the prevalence of a disease in each sector. One way to attain knowledge about such prevalences is the analysis of routine care data of the sector in question. However, diagnosis-related data might be modified by several additional influencing factors. Aims: This study aims to explore what kind of motives and modifying factors play a role for or against giving psychiatric diagnoses in psychiatric and general medical settings. Methods: Twenty-six semi-structured interviews were conducted with German physicians in the fields of general medicine and psychiatry. Interviews were analysed using content analysis. Results: The analysis revealed three major motivational categories for finding a diagnosis: (1) "objective matters" such as "categorisation for research"; (2) "functional and performance-related factors" such as "requirement for medication", "billing aspects" that go with certain diagnoses or "access to adequate care" and (3) "Individual factors" such as the "personality of a physician". Similarly, factors emerged that lead to not making psychiatric diagnoses like "fear of stigmatization among patients" or "detrimental insurance status with psychiatric diagnosis". Additionally participants mentioned other reasons for "not diagnosing a psychiatric diagnosis", such as "coding of other clinical pictures". Conclusion: The diagnostic process is a complex phenomenon that goes far beyond the identification of medical findings. This insight should be considered when processing and interpreting secondary data for designing health care systems or designing a study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Medical decisions are influenced by a variety of factors also by legal requirements and feelings of uncertainty, which results in the term defensive medicine. The aim of the study was to evaluate the influence of fears of perceived legal consequences on the practice of defensive medicine from the perspective of German general practitioners (GPs). Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed from April to May 2022. GPs were invited via an e-mail newsletter of the Institute for Continuing Education in Family Medicine in the German Association of General Practitioners and via an online platform of the German College of General Practitioners and Family Physicians. The evaluation of legal fears, the general assessment of defensive medicine and reasons for and the frequency of defensive medical measures were surveyed in this study. Beside descriptive analyses, a stepwise linear regression analysis was used to explore potential associations between for the primary outcome variable 'fears of legal consequences' on the practice of defensive medicine. Results: 413 general practitioners with an average age of 50 years (51% female) responded. The majority rated their fears of legal consequences as low to average whereas for almost a third (27%, n = 113) the fears were strong to very strong. Regarding legal fears, the physician-patient-relationship played a fairly to very large role for 48% (n = 198) of the respondents. One third estimated the probability of being sued civilly in the next 10 years as rather high to very high. 47% (n = 193) of the participants assumed that the risk of being sued could mostly to very much be reduced by defensive medicine. Legal self-protection was for 38% of the responders (n = 157) quite frequently to very frequently a reason for acting defensively. Consequently, half of the respondents stated that they performed unnecessary laboratory tests at least once per week and 40% indicated that they referred patients for radiological diagnostics without medical indication once per month. Conclusions: As legal fears have an influence on medical practice and legal self-protection being a frequent reason for defensive behaviour, understanding and knowledge of the law should be improved by legal education at university and further training of post-graduate trainees and practicing physicians should be implemented. Additionally, a more in-depth enlightenment of society about the phenomenon of Protective and Defensive Medicine and its consequences could be a possibility to decrease the perceived fears of legal consequences on the physicians' side. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]