Search

Despite social laws, overtreatment, undertreatment, and incorrect treatment are all present in the German health care system. Overtreatment denotes diagnostic and therapeutic measures that are not appropriate because they do not improve the patients' length or quality of life, cause more harm than benefit, and/or are not consented to by the patient. Overtreatment can result in considerable burden for patients, their families, the treating teams, and society. This position paper describes causes of overtreatment in intensive care medicine and makes specific recommendations to identify and prevent it. Recognition and avoidance of overtreatment in intensive care medicine requires measures on the micro-, meso- and macrolevels, especially the following: (1) frequent (re-)evaluation of the therapeutic goal within the treating team while taking the patient's will into consideration, while simultaneously attending to the patients and their families; (2) fostering a patient-centered corporate culture in the hospital, giving priority to high-quality patient care; (3) minimizing improper incentives in health care financing, supported by reform of the reimbursement system that is still based on diagnose-related groups; (4) strengthening of interprofessional co-operation via education and training; and (5) initiating and advancing a societal discourse on overtreatment.

In Germany, there are currently many voices calling for a reform of hospital planning and reimbursement to correct some aberrations of the last decades and to enable the system to cope with future challenges. Some recent political decisions to change the structures of emergency medical services as well as the introduction of mandatory nurse-to-patient ratios and the exclusion of the cost for nursing from the case-based hospital reimbursement represent first steps of a reform, which also affects intensive care and emergency medicine. In this discussion paper a group of intensivists, emergency physicians, medical controllers, and representatives of nurses suggest more far-reaching changes, which can be summarized in 5 points: (1) General hospitals with intensive care units (ICU) and emergency departments (ED) which are part of the emergency medical system should be considered as an element of public service and be planned accordingly. (2) The planning of the intensive care infrastructure should be based on the three levels of emergency medical services to identify hospitals that are system relevant and to define appropriate criteria for structure and quality measures. (3) Hospital reimbursement should consist of a base amount (covering costs for hospital staff, infrastructure plus investments) and case-based fees (covering material costs). (4) To determine the requirements for nurses, physicians, and other medical staff, adequate tools for ICU and ED should be applied. (5) For these purposes as well as for quality management and optimal medical care, hospitals should be provided with a substantially improved IT-infrastructure.

Background and Challenge: Injuries, especially traumatic brain injury, or specific illnesses and their respective sequelae can result in the demise of the patients afflicted despite all efforts of modern intensive care medicine. If in principle organ donation is an option after a patient's death, intensive therapeutic measures are regularly required in order to maintain the homeostasis of the organs. These measures, however, cannot benefit the patient afflicted anymore-which in turn might lead to an ethical conflict between dignified palliative care for him/her and expanded intensive treatment to facilitate organ donation for others, especially if the patient has opted for the limitation of life-sustaining therapies in an advance directive., Method: The Ethics Section and the Organ Donation and Transplantation Section of the German Interdisciplinary Association of Critical Care and Emergency Medicine (DIVI) have convened several meetings and a telephone conference and have arrived at a decision-making aid as to the extent of treatment for potential organ donors. This instrument focusses first on the assessment of five individual dimensions regarding organ donation, namely the certitude of a complete and irreversible loss of all brain function, the patient's wishes as to organ donation, his or her wishes as to limiting life-sustaining therapies, the intensity of expanded intensive treatment for organ protection and the odds of its successful attainment. Then, the combination of the individual assessments, as graphically shown in a {Netzdiagramm}, will allow for a judgement as to whether a continuation or possibly an expansion of intensive care measures is ethically justified, questionable or even inappropriate., Result: The aid described can help mitigate ethical conflicts as to the extent of intensive care treatment for moribund patients, when organ donation is a medically sound option. NOTE: Gerald Neitzke und Annette Rogge contributed equally to this paper and should be considered co-first authors.

The Ethics Section of the German Interdisciplinary Association of Critical Care and Emergency Medicine (DIVI) recently published a documentation for decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining therapies. The wish to donate organs was not considered explicitly. Therefore the Ethics Section and the Organ Donation and Transplantation Section of the DIVI together with the Ethics Section of the German Society of Medical Intensive Care Medicine and Emergency Medicine worked out a supplementary footnote for the documentation form to address the individual case of a patient's wish to donate organs.

Background: The German "Hospital Structure Act" intends to align the state hospital planning on quality criteria. Within this process cost-utility analyses (CUAs) shall be used to assess the efficacy of medical care. To be objective, CUAs of intensive care units (ICUs) require standardization (adjustment) of costs. The present study analyzed the extent to which treatment costs are related to patient-specific baseline variables (such as type and severity of the primary disease)., Methods: From 2000-2004, a bottom-up procedure was used to quantify total costs on 14 ICUs in nine German university hospitals. Results were combined with demographic data, and data indicating type (ICD-10 codes) and severity (ICU scoring systems) of the primary disease at ICU admission. Various statistical models were tested to identify that which best described the associations between baseline variables and costs., Results: In all, 3803 critically ill patients could be examined. The median of treatment costs per patient was 3199 € (IQR 1768-6659 €). No model allowed an acceptably precise adjustment of costs; the estimated mean absolute prognostic error was at least 3860 € (mean relative prognostic error 66%), when we tested an Extreme Gradient Boosting Model., Conclusion: Instruments which are currently available (cost adjustment based on patient-specific baseline variables) do not allow a standardization of costs, and an objective CUA of ICUs. Factors unknown at baseline may cause a large portion of treatment costs.

With the new millenium, "Gesundsheitsreform 2000" (Health Reform 2000) fundamentally changed the principles for reimbursement of hospital treatment costs in Germany. Before then, hospital treatment was completely reimbursed by the health insurance companies. Now, reimbursement is entirely based on a new diagnosis-related group (DRG) payment system. The aim was a reduction of the expanding cost of the health care system, more efficient economics, and better control. This concept was unique, since until now reimbursement had nowhere been based 100% on a DRG system. For critical care medicine, this became a special problem because standardization of treatment procedures is nearly impossible and is not related to specific diagnoses. Therefore, completely new solutions had to be found for a fair reimbursement of critical care treatment. The difficult search for a good solution is described here. The DIVI (German Interdisciplinary Association of Critical Care and Emergency Medicine) was able to present good arguments and concepts based on actual and realistic cost analyses. However, the solutions found remain insufficient, and fundamental problems are still not solved.

Intensive care medicine has made great contributions to the immense success of modern curative medicine. However, emotional care and empathy for the patient and his family seem to be sparse. There is an assumed constraint to objectivity and efficiency, as well as a massive economic pressure which transfers the physician into an agent of the disease instead of a trustee of the ill human being. The physician struggles against the disease and feels the death of his patient as his personal defeat. However, in futile situations the intensivist must learn to let go. He is responsible for futile overtreatment as well as for successful treatment. Today, in futile situations in the intensive care unit (ICU), it is possible to change the goal from curative treatment to palliative care. This is a consequent further development from critical care medicine. In end-of-life situations in the intensive care unit, emotional care and empathy are mandatory using intensive dialogues with the family. Despite great workload stress enough time for such conversation should be taken, because the physician will generously be repaid by the way he sees his medical activity. The maintenance of a culture of empathy within the intensive care team is a major task for the leader. In this manner, the ICU will become and remain a place for living humanity.