Search

AbstractBackground Social prescribing (SP) is a patient pathway by which healthcare professionals connect patients with other sources of support, groups, or activities within their community. The awareness, practice, and perception of SP among GPs across Europe remains unclear.Objectives To explore the awareness, practice, and perception of GPs on SP in the WONCA Europe region.Methods An anonymous, cross-sectional online survey was distributed through a snowballing system, mailing lists, and at three international conferences in 2022/2023 to explore GPs’ awareness, practice, and perception of SP. The questionnaire in English contained 21 open and closed questions.Results Of the 208 participating GPs from 33 countries, 116 (56%) previously heard of ‘social prescribing’ and 66 (32%) regularly referred patients to community activities through a formal system. These 66 GPs reported different funding sources and varied activities, with an average of four activities and physical exercise being the most prevalent. Among them, 25 (38%) knew about national or local SP awareness campaigns. Of these 25, 17 (68%) agreed that SP increases their job satisfaction and 21 (84%) agreed that it has a positive impact on their patients. Variations in SP awareness and referral practice were evident across and within countries.Conclusion Despite disparities in awareness and referral practice as well as a diversity of activities and funding sources, most GPs who actively referred patients and were informed about SP campaigns agreed that SP positively impacts them and their patients.

Abstract Background In Germany, homeless people are entitled to health care within the regular health care system. However, due to their specific living conditions they make little use of these services. In 2013, three Medical centres for the homeless (MCH) were opened in Hamburg to provide general health care. This study aims to analyse the consultation reasons and diagnoses prevalent among the homeless in comparison to regular primary care patients. It also examines the means and obstacles of integrating the homeless into Germany’s regular health care system. Methods From 2013 to 2014, routine medical data of all patients of the MCH consenting to participate in the study were analysed descriptively, in particular consultation reasons (categorised by ICPC-2), ICD-10 diagnoses and data on health insurance status and the use of the regular health care system. Consultation reasons and diagnoses of homeless patients were compared descriptively with data from regular general practices. Additionally, anonymous data on patient numbers, gender and insurance status was exported from the MCH’s software and analysed descriptively for the years 2013 to 2020. Results A total of 840 homeless patients in 2013 and 2014 gave consent to the evaluation of consultation reasons and diagnoses. The most frequent consultation reasons in the MCH in 2013 were skin conditions (24%), musculoskeletal conditions (16%) and psychological disorders (14%), in GP practices these were musculoskeletal conditions (22%), conditions affecting the digestive system (14%) and skin conditions (12%). Essential (primary) hypertension, diabetes mellitus type 2 and back pain are among the top-10-diagnoses in GP practices, as well as in MCH. With regard to the other top-10-diagnoses, there are clear differences between GP practices and MCH: “Psychological behavioural disorder due to alcohol” and diagnoses in connection with trauma, skin infections and acute respiratory infections stand out in MCH. 35% of the homeless patients reported a lack of health insurance as the reason for “not making use of” the regular health care system, while 10% reported they were unable to visit a regular general practitioner due to physical or psychological reasons. In the years 2013–2020 46% to 73% of the 8.380 MCH patients had no health care insurance. Conclusion Patients consulting the MCH suffer from medical conditions typical for the homeless, namely skin diseases, wounds, injuries and behavioural disorders due to alcohol abuse, but also from “typical” symptoms in regular GP care as cough or lower back symptoms. Consultation reasons mostly are acute illnesses. Chronic diseases are equally present in regular GP and MCH patients, but pose a great challenge for the homeless among other things due to their irregular contact with the health care system. The lack of health insurance poses the greatest hurdle to the integration of the homeless into the regular health care system.

Abstract Background The huge increase of refugees to Germany caused a great challenge to the health system. We aimed to examine the level of patient-centredness in medical consultations with refugee patients, aided by video interpreters in primary care walk-in clinics (PCWC) in Hamburg. Methods Videotaped consultations (N = 92) of 83 patients from 2017 to 2018 were analysed. Two raters used the Measure of Patient-Centered Communication (MPCC) and the International Classification of primary care (ICPC-2). MPCC scores with regard to patients’ reason for seeking medical care and the procedures taken were explored using variance analyses adjusted for age, gender, and the duration of the consultation. The duration was further explored by Pearson correlations. Results Patient-centredness of all consultations on average was 64% (95% CI 60–67) according to MPCC, with health-related issues affecting the results. The highest level of patient-centredness was achieved in psychological health issues with 79% (65–94), the lowest in respiratory ones with 55% (49–61). Longer consultations resulted in higher MPCC scores. Conclusions The level of patient-centredness varied in the addressed health issues as well as in the duration of the consultation. Despite the variation, video interpreting in consultations supports a solid patient-centredness. Practice implications We recommend the use of remote video interpreting services for outpatient healthcare to support patient-centred communication and to fill the gap of underrepresentation of qualified interpreters on site, regarding a high diversity of spoken languages.

Abstract Background Social problems of patients such as family or work-related conflicts as well as financial difficulties affect the individual health situation and the treatment of diseases in general practice. General practitioners (GPs) would like to have direct access to professionals in social care services. In Germany, there are many different social care facilities for people with a wide range of social problems. As the social and health care systems hardly interact collaborations between social professionals (SPs) and GPs are rare exceptions. This study explored perspectives of GPs regarding their patients with social problems in combination with the perspectives of SPs. Aim of this study was to explore how a systematic interprofessional collaboration between GPs and SPs could be realised. Methods We carried out a participatory sequential qualitative study design consisting of two focus groups with GPs, two with SPs and two mixed-professional focus groups with GPs and SPs. The focus groups were conducted with semi-structured moderating guidelines and analysed with a qualitative content analysis approach using inductive and deductive categories. Results GPs view themselves as the first point of contact for their patients' social problems. For persistent social problems, they expressed a desire for support and SPs were willing to provide this. We developed a stepped care implementation model for a systematic cooperation consisting of nine collaboration strategies. These strategies included: index or website of social care services, referrals to the social care system, using flyers and posters of social care services, direct contact/hotline to local social care services, participation in meetings of social care facilities, involving physician assistants, external social care advice service in GP rooms, implementation in education and training and access to volunteers. Conclusions Our stepped care implementation model for a systematic cooperation of GPs and SPs could be a feasible need- and resource-oriented approach for the collaborative care of patients with social problems to improve their medical treatment in most western healthcare systems. GPs and SPs are ready to generate the necessary evidence for policy makers in high quality RCTs.

Introduction Cardiovascular diseases are the most common cause of death in Germany and among the most frequent reasons for encounters in primary care. Most patients with cardiovascular risks (CVRs) have difficulties implementing health-promoting behavioural changes. In this study, a complex intervention containing evidence-based patient materials and structured follow-up consultations are intended to strengthen patients’ self-management to improve health behaviour.Methods and analysis In this cluster randomised controlled trial, we investigate the effects of the intervention Decision aid, action planning and follow-up support for patients to reduce the 10-year risk of cardiovascular diseases (DECADE) using a 2×2 design. All patients, including the control group (CG), receive a CVR calculation. Three intervention groups (IGs) receive one or both of two different components of the DECADE intervention: IG1 (patient materials), IG2 (follow-up consultations) and IG3 (patient materials and follow-up consultations). The study was planned to be conducted with 77 general practitioners in 3 German regions and a target sample size of 924 patients. The observation period for each patient amounts to 12 months with three patient surveys: baseline (t0), after 6 and 12 months (t1 and t2). The primary outcome is patient activation (Patient Activation Measure 13 (PAM13-D)) at t1. Secondary outcomes include PAM13-D at t2 and further patient-reported and clinical outcomes at t1 and t2. We will also analyse the cost-effectiveness of the intervention, the degree of usage and satisfaction with the intervention.Ethics and dissemination The study was first approved by the lead ethics committee of the University of Freiburg on 15 April 2021 (vote number: 21-1078) and subsequently by the other ethics committees in the study regions (Ethics committee of medical association Baden-Württemberg (B-F-2021-078), Ethics Committee of the Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden (BO-EK-251052021), Ethics Committee of the State Chamber of Physicians of Saxony (EK-BR-92/21-1), Ethics Committee of the Hamburg Medical Association (2021-200013-BO-bet)). Informed consent is required for patients to participate in the study. The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at congresses by the DECADE team. The DECADE lead management will communicate the results to the funder of this study.Trial registration number German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00025401 (registration date: 21 June 2021); International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, DRKS00025401.

Social Prescribing is a mechanism by which primary care team members can refer patients to community groups to improve their health and well-being. It integrates health, social care, and community, allowing patients to actively improve their health and well-being by participating in community initiatives and activities. These activities have traditionally been part of community life in European countries, and the benefits need to be consistently recognized.

Background: Treatment of depressive disorders in old age is hindered by several barriers. Most common are time pressure in primary care and latency for specialized therapeutic care. To improve treatment, the collaborative care approach GermanIMPACT was evaluated in a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Care managers offered a complex stepped-care intervention of monitoring, psychoeducation, and behavioral activation techniques. Twenty-six percent of the intervention group responds with a remission of depressive symptoms compared with 11% who received treatment as usual (TAU). The low-threshold intervention was more successful than TAU. Nevertheless, three-quarters did not respond with a remission. The aim of this study is to identify and describe the different types of utilization and of treatment response to understand what constitutes an effective intervention.Methods: Of 64 patients from the intervention group, we carried out problem-centered interviews with 26 patients from the intervention group. We analyzed the interviews using a qualitative type-building content analysis. For type construction, we performed a contrasting case comparison, regarding inductive and deductive categories of the intervention utilization and the symptom development.Results: The 26 participants' ages ranged from 62 to 87 years (mean = 72 years). Three participants were male. We identified five types of utilization, which differ primarily in the realization of pleasant activations, depending on own activity at the beginning and during the therapy: “activatable relief seekers,” “active relief seekers,” “active relaxation seekers,” “passive problem-solving seekers,” and “passive relief seekers.” In the second typology, we analyzed four deductively determined types of treatment response responders, slight improvers, constant moderates, and non-responders. Patient-specific characteristics are a recent history of depression, an affinity for activities, supportive contacts, and limited comorbidity. In contrast, non-responders report contrary characteristics.Conclusion: Our two typologies emphasize that an effective intervention requires a match between intervention components and patient characteristics. We saw no intersections between utilization and treatment response. GermanIMPACT is an effective low-threshold intervention for moderately burdened patients, who are still capable of self-activation. An expansion of the intervention, especially for depression with a long history and comorbidities impairing mobility, could increase the effectiveness and improve the care situation of older people suffering from depression.