Search

Objectives: Patients in German ambulatory care frequently report patient safety problems (PSP). It is unclear whether patients report PSP back to their general practitioner (GP) or specialist in charge. This study reports on how patients respond to experienced PSP., Design: Retrospective cross-sectional study., Setting: Computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI) with randomly recruited citizens aged ≥40 years in Germany., Participants: 10 037 citizens ≥40 years. About 52% of the interviewees were female, 38% were between 60 and 79 years old and about 47% reported that they were chronically ill. A total of 2589 PSPs was reported., Primary and Secondary Measures/results: According to the respondents (n=1422, 77%, 95% CI: 74.7 to 79.1), 72% (95% CI: 70.2 to 73.7) of PSP were reported back to the GP in charge or to another GP/specialist. Further reactions were taken by 65% (95% CI: 62.5 to 67.5) of the interviewees: around 63% (95% CI: 62.5 to 66.2) of the reported PSP led to a loss of faith in the physician or to complaints. χ 2 and binary logistic regression analyses show significant associations between the (a) reporting and (b) reaction behaviour and determinants like 'medical treatment area' ((a) χ 2 =17.13, p=0.009/(b) χ 2 =97.58, p=0.000), 'PSP with/without harm' ((a) χ 2 =111.84, p=0.000/(b) χ 2 =265.39, p=0.000) and sociodemographic characteristics when respondents are aged between 40 and 59 years ((a) OR 2.57/(b) OR 2.60) or have chronic illnesses ((a) OR 2.16/(b) OR 2.14)., Conclusion: The data suggest that PSPs are frequently reported back to the GP or specialist in charge and have a significant serious impact on the physician-patient relationship. Much could be learnt from the patient reporting and reacting behaviour to prevent PSPs in ambulatory care., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Data on patient safety problems (PSPs) in ambulatory care are scarce. The aim of the study was to record the frequency, type, severity and point of origin of PSPs in ambulatory care in Germany., Design: Retrospective cross-sectional study., Setting: Computer-assisted telephone interviews with randomly recruited citizens aged ≥40 years in Germany who were asked about their experiences with PSPs in ambulatory care., Participants: 10 037 citizens ≥40 years., Measures: A new questionnaire was developed to record patient experiences with PSPs in ambulatory care. The study reported here targets patient experiences in the last 12 months. The questionnaire focuses on PSPs in seven areas of medical treatment: anamnesis/diagnostic procedures; medication; vaccination, injection, infusion; aftercare; outpatient surgery; office administration; other areas. For each PSP reported, detailed questions were asked about the specialist group concerned, and, on the most serious harm, the severity of the harm and its consequences. The target parameters are presented as proportions with 95% CIs., Results: 1422 of the respondents (14%) reported 2589 PSPs. The areas most frequently affected by PSPs were anamnesis/diagnostic procedures (61%) and medication (15%). General practitioners accounted for 44% of PSPs, orthopaedists for 15% and internists for 10%. 75% of PSPs were associated with harm, especially unnecessarily prolonged pain or deterioration of health; 35% of PSPs led to permanent harm. 804 PSPs (32%) prompted patients to see another doctor for additional treatment; 255 PSPs (10%) required inpatient treatment., Conclusion: PSPs experienced by patients are widespread in ambulatory care in Germany. The study reveals in which areas of medical treatment efforts to prevent PSPs could make the greatest contribution to improving patient safety. It also demonstrates the valuable contribution of patient reports to the analysis of PSPs., 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.)

Objective: The study aimed to illustrate the effect of the patients' sex, age, self-rated health and medical practice specialization on patient satisfaction., Design: Secondary analysis of patient survey data using multilevel analysis (generalized linear mixed model, medical practice as random effect) using a sequential modelling strategy. We examined the effects of the patients' sex, age, self-rated health and medical practice specialization on four patient satisfaction dimensions: medical practice organization, information, interaction, professional competence., Setting: The study was performed in 92 German medical practices providing ambulatory care in general medicine, internal medicine or gynaecology., Participants: In total, 9888 adult patients participated in a patient survey using the validated 'questionnaire on satisfaction with ambulatory care-quality from the patient perspective [ZAP]'., Main Outcome Measure(s): We calculated four models for each satisfaction dimension, revealing regression coefficients with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all independent variables, and using Wald Chi-Square statistic for each modelling step (model validity) and LR-Tests to compare the models of each step with the previous model., Results: The patients' sex and age had a weak effect (maximum regression coefficient 1.09, CI 0.39; 1.80), and the patients' self-rated health had the strongest positive effect (maximum regression coefficient 7.66, CI 6.69; 8.63) on satisfaction ratings. The effect of medical practice specialization was heterogeneous., Conclusions: All factors studied, specifically the patients' self-rated health, affected patient satisfaction. Adjustment should always be considered because it improves the comparability of patient satisfaction in medical practices with atypically varying patient populations and increases the acceptance of comparisons., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press in association with the International Society for Quality in Health Care. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com)

Background: In settings like the ambulatory care sector in Germany, where data on the outcomes of interdisciplinary health services provided by multiple office-based physicians are not always readily available, our study aims to develop a set of indicators of health care quality and utilization for 14 groups of ambulatory-care-sensitive conditions based on routine data. These may improve the provision of health care by informing discussions in quality circles and other meetings of networks of physicians who share the same patients.Methods: Our set of indicators was developed as part of the larger Accountable Care in Deutschland (ACD) project using a pragmatic consensus approach. The six stages of the approach drew upon a review of the literature; the expertise of physicians, health services researchers, and representatives of physician associations and statutory health insurers; and the results of a pilot study with six informal network meetings of office-based physicians who share the same patients.Results: The process resulted in a set of 248 general and disease specific indicators for 14 disease groups. The set provides information on the quality of care provided and on patient pathways, covering patient characteristics, physician visits, ambulatory care processes, pharmaceutical prescriptions and outcome indicators. The disease groups with the most indicators were ischemic heart diseases, diabetes and heart failure.Conclusion: Our set of indicators provides useful information on patients' health care use, health care processes and health outcomes for 14 commonly treated groups of ambulatory-care-sensitive conditions. This information can inform discussions in interdisciplinary quality circles in the ambulatory sector and foster patient-centered care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]