Search

Background: Facing rising inequities and poorer accessibility of physicians in rural areas, new healthcare delivery structures are being considered to support local healthcare in German communities. To better understand perspectives on and attitudes towards different supplementary models, we examined attitudes among local politicians in the German federal state of Lower Saxony towards the suitability of supplementary care models. Methods: As part of a cross-sectional study, we surveyed local politicians in Lower Saxony at the local authority and district levels (n = 449) by mail questionnaire. We asked for an assessment of four potential supplementary healthcare models at the local level: the use of trained medical assistants, patients' buses, mobile physicians' offices, and telemedicine. Results: The response rate was 71.0% for mayors (n = 292) and 81.6% (n = 31) for county administrators. In summary, 72.4% of respondents supported the use of trained medical assistants, 48.9% voted for patients' buses, 22.0% for mobile physicians' offices, and 13.9% for telemedicine. Except for telemedicine, the politicians' approval of the supplementary models in rural areas was higher than in urban areas. The assessment regarding the suitability of each model was not significantly connected with indicators of a positively or negatively assessed local healthcare situation. The analyses showed that the use of trained medical assistants was associated with the positive effects of division of labor and potential to relieve physicians. In contrast, there was skepticism about technical support via telemedicine, mostly due to concerns about its unsuitability for elderly people and the potential lower quality of healthcare delivery. Conclusion: Local politicians widely accept the use of trained medical assistants, whereas the applicability of technical solutions such as telemedicine is perceived with skepticism. Therefore, the knowledge gap between evidence for and prejudices against telemedicine needs to be addressed more effectively. Reasons for the assessments of the presented models are more likely traceable to personal views than to assessments of the actual estimated local primary care situation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the future, 'delegation' as task shifting from general practitioners (GPs) to non-physicians will be important in primary care. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the attitudes towards the concept of task shifting and to identify predictors of a positive attitude towards task shifting from the perspective of GPs. Methods: This cross-sectional questionnaire study analysed attitudes towards the concept of task shifting and delegated tasks from the perspective of GPs who were recruited in the German federal state of Schleswig-Holstein. Descriptive statistics and binary regression analyses were computed to identify potential predictors of a positive attitude towards task shifting. Results: Out of 1538 questionnaires distributed, 577 GP questionnaires were returned (response rate: 37.5%). A total of 53.2% of the respondents were male, and 37.3% were female. A positive attitude regarding task shifting was shown by 49% of the participating GPs. The highest level of agreement (95.2%) was found for time savings with task shifting, and a lower agreement (39%) was found regarding the lack of clarity concerning the responsibilities and legal aspects with regards to task shifting. The most frequently delegated tasks were recording electrocardiograms and measuring blood glucose levels. A positive attitude towards task shifting was positively associated with higher job satisfaction and a need for qualified staff. Conclusion: Our sample of GPs for this study was very open-minded towards the concept of task shifting. Germany is just beginning this delegation, but the implementation of task shifting depends on different aspects, such as legal requirements, adequate payment and qualified staff. Finally, there is a need for continuing professional development in primary care teams, especially for non-clinical practice staff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We developed and evaluated a tailored programme to implement three evidence-based recommendations for multimorbid patients with polypharmacy into primary care practices: structured medication counselling including brown bag reviews, the use of medication lists and medication reviews. No effect on the primary outcome was found. This process evaluation aimed to identify factors associated with outcomes by exploring nine hypotheses specified in the logic model of the tailored programme.Methods: The tailored programme was developed with respect to identified determinants of practice and consisted of a workshop for practice teams, elaboration of implementation action plans, aids for medication reviews, a multilingual info-tool for patients on a tablet PC, posters and brown paper bags as reminders for patients. The tailored programme was evaluated in a cluster randomized trial. The process evaluation was based on various data sources: interviews with general practitioners and medical assistants of the intervention group and a survey with general practitioners of the intervention and control group, written reports on the implementation action plans, documentation forms for structured medication counselling and the log file of the info-tool.Results: We analyzed 12 interviews, 21 questionnaires, 120 documentation forms for medication counselling, 5 implementation action plans and one log file of the info-tool. The most frequently reported effect of the tailored programme was the increase of awareness for the health problem and the recommendations, while implementation of routine processes was only reported for structured medication counselling. The survey largely confirmed the usefulness of the applied strategies, yet the interviews provided a more detailed understanding of the actual use of the strategies and several suggestions for modifications of the tailored programme.Conclusions: The tailored programme seemed to have induced awareness as a first step of behaviour change. Several modifications of the tailored programme may enhance its effectiveness such as conducting outreach visits instead of a workshop, improved targeting, provision of evidence, integration of tools into the practice software and information materials in tailored formats.Trial Registration: This study is linked to an outcome evaluation study with the registration ISRCTN34664024 , assigned 14/08/2013. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Multimorbid patients receiving polypharmacy represent a growing population at high risk for negative health outcomes. Tailoring is an approach of systematic intervention development taking account of previously identified determinants of practice. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of a tailored program to improve the implementation of three important processes of care for this patient group: (a) structured medication counseling including brown bag reviews, (b) the use of medication lists, and (c) structured medication reviews to reduce potentially inappropriate medication.Methods: We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial with a follow-up time of 9 months. Participants were general practitioners (GPs) organized in quality circles and participating in a GP-centered care contract of a German health insurance. Patients aged >50 years, suffering from at least 3 chronic diseases, receiving more than 4 drugs, and being at high risk for medication-related events according to the assessment of the treating GP were enrolled. The tailored program consisted of a workshop for GPs and health care assistants, educational materials and reminders for patients, and the elaboration of implementation action plans. The primary outcome was the change in the degree of implementation between baseline and follow-up, measured by a summary score of 10 indicators. The indicators were based on structured surveys with patients and GPs.Results: We analyzed the data of 21 GPs (10 - intervention group, 11 - control group) and 273 patients (130 - intervention group, 143 - control group). The increase in the degree of implementation was 4.2 percentage points (95% confidence interval: -0.3, 8.6) higher in the intervention group compared to the control group (p = 0.1). Two of the 10 indicators were significantly improved in the intervention group: medication counseling (p = 0.017) and brown bag review (p = 0.012). Secondary outcomes showed an effect on patients' self-reported use of medication lists when buying drugs in the pharmacy (p = 0.03).Conclusions: The tailored program may improve implementation of medication counseling and brown bag review whereas the use of medication lists and medication reviews did not improve. No effect of the tailored program on the combined primary outcome could be substantiated. Due to limitations of the study, results have to be interpreted carefully. The factors facilitating and hindering successful implementation will be examined in a comprehensive process evaluation.Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN34664024 , assigned 14/08/2013. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In the 'Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD)' project, five tailored implementation programs to improve healthcare delivery in different chronic conditions have been developed. These programs will be evaluated in distinct cluster-randomized controlled trials. This protocol describes the process evaluation across these trials, which aims to identify determinants of change in chronic illness care, to examine the validity of the tailoring methods that were applied, and to analyze the association of implementation activities and the effectiveness of the program. Methods A multilevel approach was used to develop five tailored implementation interventions. In order to guide the process evaluation in five distinct trials, the study protocols for the cluster randomized trials and the related process evaluations were developed simultaneously and iteratively. Results The process evaluation comprises three main components: a structured survey with health professionals in the trials, semi-structured interviews with a purposeful sample of this study population, and standardized documentation of organizational practice characteristics. Norway will only conduct the qualitative part of the analysis because the survey and documentation of practice characteristics are considered to be not feasible. The evaluation is guided by 'logic models' of the implementation programs: frameworks that specify the linkages between the strategies used, the determinants addressed by tailoring, and the anticipated outcomes. Standardization of measures across trials is sought to facilitate analysis of aggregated data from the trials. Conclusions This process evaluation will need to find a balance between standardization of methods across trials and the tailoring of measures to the specificities of each trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Multimorbid patients frequently receive complex medication regimens and are at higher risk for adverse drug reactions and hospitalisations. Managing patients with polypharmacy is demanding, because it requires coordination of multiple prescribers and intensive monitoring. Three evidence-based recommendations addressing polypharmacy in primary care are structured medication counselling, use of medication lists and medication reviews to avoid potentially inappropriate medication (PIM). Although promising to improve patient outcomes, these recommendations are not well implemented in German routine care. Implementation of guidelines is often hindered by specific "determinants of change". "Tailored" interventions are designed to specifically address previously identified determinants. This study examines a tailored intervention to implement the aforementioned recommendations into primary care practices. This study is part of the European Tailored Interventions for Chronic Diseases project, which aims at contributing knowledge about the methods used for tailoring. Methods/Design The study is designed as a cluster randomized controlled trial with primary care practices of general practitioners (GPs) who are organized in quality circles. Quality circles will be the unit of randomization with a 1:1 ratio. Follow-up time is 6 months. GPs and healthcare assistants in the intervention group will receive training on medication management. Each GP will create a tailored concept of how to implement the three recommendations into his/her practice. Evidence-based checklists for medication counselling and medication reviews will be provided for physicians. A tablet PC with an interactive educational tool and information leaflets will be provided for use by patients to inform about the necessity of continuous medication management. Control practices will not receive special training and will provide care as usual. Primary outcome is the degree of implementation of the three recommendations, which will be measured using a prespecified set of indicators. Additionally, the PIM prescription rate, patient activation, patients' beliefs about medicine, medication adherence and patients' social support will be measured. Discussion This study will contribute knowledge about the feasibility of implementing recommendations for managing patients with polypharmacy in primary care practices. Additionally, this study will contribute knowledge about methods for tailoring of implementation interventions [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]