Search

Background: Family practice is an important setting for health promotion and prevention in Germany. However, there is a research gap regarding the involvement of nonmedical practice staff in health promotion. Therefore, our aim is to gain an indepth understanding of the role health care assistants (HCAs) can play regarding health promotion in family practice. Methods: We conducted 21 qualitative semi-structured interviews via telephone with 14 physicians and 7 HCAs, inquiring both professional groups about the role of HCAs concerning health promotion in their practice. The interviews were evaluated separately for both professions using thematic analysis. Results: In addition to organizational tasks such as making an appointment and communicating with physicians, HCAsmainly take on a key function as the first contact person in all practices: They recognize preventive needs, select eligible patients early at the reception and actively address them about preventive services. In some practices, HCAs carry out health-promoting measures such as training courses. However, with regard to further delegation of tasks, physicians in particular expressed concerns as they did not want to overburden HCAs. Conclusions: HCAs often take on organizational activities with regard to health promotion in family practice, but due to their function in the practice structure, they can also shape the practice as a health-promoting setting for patients. In addition, HCAs navigate patients with regard to preventive and health-promoting services. In accordance with their key role as initial contact, it should be worked out together with HCAs how health promotion can be addressed in a structured way at first contact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

General practices are rooted in the local community and considered to be particularly well‐positioned for engaging in preventive and health‐promoting activities. The overall aim of the scoping review is to identify priorities and gaps in research published in the past 20 years on preventive and health‐promoting activities provided by general practitioners or their teams in general practices in Germany. MEDLINE and Embase databases were systematically searched in November 2020. Papers were selected in dual‐review mode and extracted in single‐review mode. Data analysis was finished by May 2021. In total, 530 papers were included in the synthesis. Little research has been carried out into collaboration opportunities both within the general practice team and in communities as a whole, with specialists (18%), hospitals (9%), and health insurance companies (6%) being the most frequent cooperation partners of GPs. 15%–20% of papers each dealt with 'early detection', 'information provision' and 'cardiovascular prevention'. Secondary (53%) and tertiary prevention (43%) was more often the subject of research than primary (39%) and quaternary prevention (15%). Healthy subjects (26%) were less often studied than people with pre‐existing conditions (42%) and risk factors (48%). Little information was available on preventive activities in terms of gender, young people, migration background, housing conditions or educational background. Personal counselling (15%) was the most frequently described approach to health promotion in general practices, along with printed information materials (10%). This scoping review provides information on which to base targeted interventions and future research that can contribute towards transforming general practices into promoters of health within the community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To improve patient safety, it is important that healthcare facilities learn from critical incidents. Tools such as reporting and learning systems and team meetings structure error management and promote learning from incidents. To enhance error management in ambulatory care practices, it is important to promote a climate of safety and ensure personnel share views on safety policies and procedures. In contrast to the hospital sector, little research has been dedicated to developing feasible approaches to supporting error management and safety climate in ambulatory care. In this study, we developed, implemented, and evaluated a multicomponent intervention to address how error management and safety climate can be improved in ambulatory care practices., Methods: In a prospective 1-group pretest-posttest implementation study, we sought to encourage teams in German ambulatory practices to use proven methods such as guidelines, workshops, e-learning, (online) meetings, and e-mail newsletters. A pretest-posttest questionnaire was used to evaluate level and strength of safety climate and psychological behavioral determinants for systematic error management. Using 3 short surveys, we also assessed the state of error management in the participating practices. In semistructured interviews, we asked participants for their views on our intervention measures., Results: Overall, 184 ambulatory care practices nationwide agreed to participate. Level of safety climate and safety climate strength (rwg) improved significantly. Of psychological behavioral determinants, significant improvements could be seen in "action/coping planning" and "action control." Seventy-six percent of practices implemented a new reporting and learning system or modified their existing system. The exchange of information between practices also increased over time. Interviews showed that the introductory workshop and provided materials such as report forms or instructions for team meetings were regarded as helpful., Conclusions: A significant improvement in safety climate level and strength, as well as participants' knowledge of how to analyze critical incidents, derive preventive measures and develop concrete plans suggest that it is important to train practice teams, to provide practical tips and tools, and to facilitate the exchange of information between practices. Future randomized and controlled intervention trials should confirm the effectiveness of our multicomponent intervention.Trial registration: Retrospectively registered on 18. November 2019 in German Clinical Trials Register No. DRKS00019053., Competing Interests: This study was funded by the Innovation Fund of the German Federal Joint Committee (grant number 01VSF16021). The institutions of BSM, DL, D. Schütze, TB, M. Pommée, HM, KR, CT, RS, CG, M. Paulitsch, and FMG received the grant. The funder played no role in designing the study, in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, or in writing the manuscript. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: The topic of patient safety has been a subject of much discussion since the end of the last millennium. Ensuring patient safety is a central challenge in health care. An important tool to raise awareness for and learn from adverse events and thus promote patient safety are error-reporting and learning systems (Critical Incident Reporting System = CIRS)., Methods: More than 17 years after its establishment, the CIRS "jeder-fehler-zaehlt.de" (JFZ) for German primary care has undergone a revision in terms of content and technology. The revised web-based system can be used for reporting as well as for classifying and analyzing incident reports. During this process, a descriptive analysis of the current report inventory was carried out, with a focus on serious medication errors. This included all 781 valid incident reports received between September 2004 and December 2021., Results: In 576 of the 781 reports (73.8%), the GP practice was directly involved in the critical incident. Among error types, process errors predominated (79.8% of the classifications, 99.1% of the reports) compared with knowledge and skills errors (20.2% of the classifications, 39.7% of the reports). Communication errors (63.0%) were the most common contributing factor to critical incidents, followed by flaws in tasks and measures (39.7%). Serious and permanent patient harm was rarely reported (8.3% of the reports), whereas temporary patient harm was more common (40.3% of the reports). Incident reports about medication errors with at least serious patient harm included, in particular, substances that affected blood clotting, corticosteroids, and opiates., Discussion: Our results complement the rates that are reported internationally for error types, patient harm, and contributing factors. Serious but preventable adverse events, so-called never events, are frequently associated with the medication process in both JFZ reports and the literature., Conclusion: Critical incident reporting systems cannot provide accurate information about the frequency of errors in health care, but they can offer important insights into, for example, serious medication errors. Therefore, they offer both employees and healthcare institutions an opportunity for individual and institutional learning., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

Objective: In Germany, children with life-limiting conditions and complex symptoms are eligible for specialised outpatient palliative care (SOPC). In the federal state of Hesse, SOPC for children (SOPPC) is delivered by teams with paediatric expertise. While burdened by the life-limiting condition of their child, parents must also fulfill their roles as main care providers and decision makers. Collaboration between parents and SOPPC teams is important, as the intermittent care and uncertainty it entails often lasts for several months or years. We explored parents' experiences and their demands of collaboration with SOPPC teams., Methods: We conducted nine narrative interviews with 13 parents of children and adolescents with life-limiting conditions and used a grounded theory approach to analyse interview data., Results: Parents stressed the importance of paediatric expertise, honesty, psychosocial support, an individualised approach, experience of self-efficacy and the need to be recognised as experts for their children. The narrative interviews showed that collaboration between parents and SOPPC teams was characterised by parents' need for specialised professional assistance and their simultaneous empowerment by SOPPC teams., Conclusions: Parents' perceptions of what good collaboration with SOPPC teams entails are manifold. To meet these complex needs, SOPPC requires time and specialised expertise., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic general practitioners complained about feeling uninformed and lacking a sufficient flow of information from the local health authorities. Secure instant messaging describes a digital, chat-based form of communication enabling ambulatory care providers to connect in real-time and share information across medial sectors. KomPan, a proof-of-concept study, established a secure instant messaging structure in two model regions in Germany to improve communication between general practitioners and local health authorities via an additional communication pathway. This paper presents results of a qualitative user survey., Methods: We recruited general practitioners (n = 43) and staff of local health authorities (n=10) in two Hessian model regions for using the secure instant messaging (SIM) app of the Famedly GmbH, starting in December 2020 (2 nd COVID-19 wave). We asked participants to share their usage experiences after a usage time of multiple months. In guided telephone interviews, we primarily asked how communication between the two user groups had changed while using secure instant messaging. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis., Results: We conducted ten interviews with general practitioners and two with staff of the participating local health authorities. Using our SIM-based platform promoted professional exchange between general practitioners. In contrast, the app had little impact on communication between local health authorities and general practitioners. Opposing expectations and usage patterns of the two user groups, among other reasons, probably led to a reduced direct trans-sectoral communication via secure instant messaging., Conclusion: Establishing local chat groups for general practitioners was welcomed, especially during the pandemic situation, to improve professional exchange while experiencing challenging working conditions. To use secure instant messaging effectively for trans-sectoral communication a more comprehensive approach seems to be needed, such as digitalisation of institutional communication structures and improved networks of local healthcare providers., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

Background: In Germany, people with life-limiting conditions and complex symptoms are eligible for specialized outpatient palliative care (SOPC). Requirements, delivery and goals of SOPC have been laid down by the Federal Joint Committee in a nationwide guideline. The guideline emphasizes the need to consider the special needs of children and adolescents with life-limiting conditions. A specification of these needs has so far been missing. The focus group discussion presented here aimed at investigating similarities and differences between the specialized outpatient palliative care of adults (SOPC for adults) on the one hand, and children and adolescents (SOPPC) on the other hand, from the perspective of health care professionals in order to further define specifics of SOPPC., Method: In three focus group discussions a total of 11 nursing and 8 medical professionals from SOPC for adults and SOPPC engaged in face-to-face discussions on the similarities and differences of both care forms. Discussions were designed openly and stimulated with three guiding questions only. Focus group discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed by thematic analysis supported by the software MAXQDA., Results: Within the following six themes, similarities as well as key differences between SOPC and SOPPC were identified: the participants discussed diseases, coverage area and locations, therapy goals, the psychosocial care situation, the role of relatives and end-of-life care. From the participants' perspective different underlying diseases constitute a main difference that causes further differences in the expertise required. Furthermore, SOPC for adults and SOPPC differ in the dimension of areas covered by one team, the number of patients per team and the reasons for SOPC visits. Differences in terminal care and the mourning process within the team became evident. Some similarities existed regarding goal-setting, psychosocial care and the role of relatives, but concrete patterns and the importance of these aspects differed because a particularly complex and emotional communication is required when a child is dying., Conclusion: From the perspective of health care professionals, SOPC for adults and SOPPC differ with regard to underlying diseases as well as care patterns such as collaboration with relatives and their need for psychosocial support. Therefore, the care for children, adolescents and young adults with life-limiting conditions and pediatric diseases all over Germany should be delivered within the frame of an independent care structure by teams whose members possess specific pediatric expertise., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

Background and Aim: Children and adolescents with life-limiting conditions and complex symptoms are eligible for specialized outpatient palliative care (SOPC). The SOPC guideline in Germany solely states: "The special needs of children and adolescents shall be considered." This study aims to identify these special needs and to develop recommendations for a revision of the SOPC guideline., Methods: We used a sequential mixed-methods design including surveys, qualitative interviews, participant observations, and focus group discussions with relatives, patients, and team members of the SOPC in Hesse, Germany. Furthermore, we analyzed documentation data of the Hessian SOPC teams., Results: Children and adolescents in SOPC suffer from complex and often rare diseases. They need elaborate palliative care delivered by a team with pediatric expertise. SOPC must include the whole family and coordinate healthcare providers that are stretched regionally. Furthermore, patients and relatives need elaborate psychosocial care. SOPC for children and adolescents is less well-known than SOPC for adults, and access for families is often difficult. There is a healthcare gap for children and adolescents with life-limiting diseases who need palliative care at home but not of the intensive kind provided by SOPC., Conclusions: SOPC for children, adolescents, and adults who have been diseased since their childhood and adolescence must be delivered within an independent structure, including a reimbursement scheme that takes the special care efforts for this patient group into consideration., (© 2022. The Author(s).)