Search

Background: In the COVID-19 pandemic, novel regional services and communication channels emerged across all sectors of the German healthcare system. To contribute to pandemic preparedness, this study aims to describe newly established services in response to the COVID-19 pandemic from a stakeholder perspective and to examine the interprofessional communication channels, applying a nationwide cross-sectional approach. Methods: A nationwide sample of German healthcare stakeholders comprising general practitioners, associations of statutory health insurance physicians, hospital medical directors, local health departments, rescue coordination centres, medical directors of emergency services, outpatient nursing services, nursing homes, community care access centres, and hospital nursing managers was surveyed. A web-based questionnaire asked for their level of participation in newly implemented regional COVID-19 services and communication channels. Stakeholders' level of recommendation was measured using the Net Promotor Score (NPS), a metric that assesses their satisfaction towards the services surveyed. Results: In total, 1312 healthcare stakeholders participated in the survey. Diagnostic centres (23.0–90.9%), COVID-19 wards in hospitals (40.5–92.1%), emergency medical vehicles designated solely for COVID-19 patients (16.5–68.4%), and crisis intervention teams (11.6–30.6%) exhibited the highest rates of engagement. The services receiving the highest recommendation for future use were COVID-19 focus practices (NPS: 33.4–43.7), COVID-19 wards in hospitals (NPS: 47.6–84.4), transportation of COVID-19 patients exclusively by predefined professional groups (NPS: 12.5–36.4), and newly implemented digitally supported nursing services (NPS: 58.3–100.0). Telephones emerged as the most frequently used communication channel (58.0–96.7%), while email was the primary digital channel (23.7–81.5%). Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic, Germany experienced significant variation in the implementation of pandemic-related services across healthcare sectors, with stakeholders prioritising services built on existing healthcare structures. Developing a proactive digital infrastructure to connect healthcare professionals from different sectors is crucial for better future pandemic management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: About one million people in need of home care in Germany are assisted by 15,400 home care services. Home healthcare is mostly a complex endeavour because interprofessional collaboration is often challenging. This might negatively impact patient safety. The project interprof HOME aims to develop an interprofessional person-centred care concept for people receiving home care in a multistep approach. In one of the work packages we explored how people receiving home care, relatives, nurses, general practitioners, and therapists (physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and speech therapists) perceive collaboration in this setting. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 people receiving home care and with 21 relatives. Additionally, we worked with nine monoprofessional focus groups involving nurses of home care services (n = 17), general practitioners (n = 14), and therapists (n = 21). The data were analysed by content analysis. Results: Three main categories evolved: "perception of interprofessional collaboration", "means of communication", and "barriers and facilitators". People receiving home care and relatives often perceive little to no interprofessional collaboration and take over a significant part of the organisational coordination and information exchange. Interprofessional collaboration in steady care situations does exist at times and mostly occurs in coordination tasks. Contact and information exchange are rare, however, interprofessional personal encounters are sporadic, and fixed agreements and permanent contact persons are not standard. These trends increase with the complexity of the healthcare situation. Joint collaborations are often perceived as highly beneficial. Means of communications such as telephone, fax, or e-mail are used differently and are often considered tedious and time-consuming. No interprofessional formal written or electronic documentation system exists. Personal acquaintance and mutual trust are perceived as being beneficial, while a lack of mutual availability, limited time, and inadequate compensation hinder interprofessional collaboration. Conclusions: Interprofessional collaboration in home care occurs irregularly, and coordination often remains with people receiving home care or relatives. While this individual care set-up may work sufficiently well in low complex care situations, it becomes vulnerable to disruptions with increasing complexity. Close interactions, joint collaboration, and fixed means of communication might improve healthcare at home. The findings were integrated into the development of the person-centred interprofessional care concept interprof HOME. Trial registration: This study is registered on the International Clinical Trails registry platform ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT05149937 on 03/11/2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The German multi-centre cluster-randomised controlled trial interprof ACT investigated interventions to increase inter-professional collaboration between nursing home (NH) staff and local general practitioners to reduce hospitalisations and improve nursing homes residents’ (NHRs) quality of life. The trial was funded by the German Health Care Innovation Fund. Methods: Cost-effectiveness of interprofACT interventions was evaluated and compared to current standard of care (SOC) over 12 months, including 622 NHRs in 34 NHs in Germany. Multiplying resource use of healthcare services with German-specific unit costs generated costs. Health outcome was measured in quality-adjusted life-years QALYs), utility by multiplying EQ-5D-5L values with German-specific utility weights. Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis used an intention-to-treat approach and scenario analyses (SAs). Net-benefit-regression and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves addressed uncertainty. A German healthcare insurance perspective was assumed. Results: Base case results showed non-significant cost savings of 851.88€ and nonsignificant QALY loss of –0,056. Discussion: Dependency levels at baseline were non-significantly higher in IG compared to control group (CG). Lack of baseline costing data eliminated possibility to evaluate changes in costs due to the interprof ACT measures for both groups. Conclusion: Interprof ACT interventions are not cost-effective compared to current SOC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Some hospital admissions of nursing home residents (NHRs) might be attributed to inadequate interprofessional collaboration. To improve general practitioner–nurse collaboration in nursing homes (NHs), we developed an intervention package (interprof ACT) in a previous study. Objective To assess the impact of interprof ACT on the proportion of hospitalisation and other clinical parameters within 12 months from randomisation among NHRs. Methods Multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial in 34 German NHs. NHRs of the control group received usual care, whereas NHRs in the intervention group received interprof ACT. Eligible NHs had at least 40 long-term care residents. NHs were randomised 1:1 pairwise. Blinded assessors collected primary outcome data. Results Seventeen NHs (320 NHRs) were assigned to interprof ACT and 17 NHs (323 NHRs) to usual care. In the intervention group, 136 (42.5%) NHRs were hospitalised at least once within 12 months from randomisation and 151 (46.7%) in the control group (odds ratio (OR): 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI): [0.55; 1.22], P  = 0.33). No differences were found for the average number of hospitalisations: 0.8 hospitalisations per NHR (rate ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% CI: [0.66, 1.25], P  = 0.54). Average length of stay was 5.7 days for NHRs in the intervention group and 6.5 days in the control group (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: [0.45, 1.11], P  = 0.13). Falls were the most common adverse event, but none was related to the study intervention. Conclusions The implementation of interprof ACT did not show a statistically significant and clinically relevant effect on hospital admission of NHRs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: In order to address well-known challenges in dementia care, an inter-professional course was developed to improve medical students' and nursing students' competencies in the provision of evidence-based care for people with dementia. The course comprises lectures, problem-based learning (PbL) tutorials and visitations to care facilities. A pilot study was conducted to evaluate the acceptance and feasibility of the inter-professional course. Methodology: Alongside preliminary implementation of the newly developed course, a pre-post survey was carried out involving all participating students. The questionnaire contained standardized and open-ended questions on participants' views regarding the quality and relevance of several course components and characteristics. The data were analyzed by means of descriptive statistics. Results: When the course was offered the first time, multiple barriers became evident, leading to premature course termination and subsequent revision of the curriculum. When the revised course was offered, 10 medical students and 8 nursing students participated. The course proved feasible, and the median overall quality was rated as "2" (IQR 2-3) at a rating scale ranging from 1 (very good) to 6 (inadequate). Following aspects were most frequently judged positively: the course's inter-professional scope, the visitations to care facilities and the PbL tutorials. Potential for improvement was particularly noted with regard to a more distinct focus on well-defined, mainly practical learning outcomes. There were no indications of systematic between-group differences in the medical and nursing students' perceptions of the course program. Conclusions: The results confirmed the feasibility of the inter-professional course on dementia care and the relevance of its inter-professional scope. However, to ensure sustainable course implementation in the long term, further program adaptations based on current findings and further evaluation studies focusing on objective parameters of the process and outcome quality are required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]