First do no harm. Then do not cheat: DRG upcoding in German neonatology

Since 2003 German hospitals are reimbursed according to diagnosis related groups (DRGs). Patient classification in neonatology is based inter alia on birth weight, with substantial discontinuities in reimbursement at eight different thresholds. These discontinuities create strong incentives to upcode preterm infants into classes of lower birth weight. Using data from the German birth statistics 1996 to 2010 and German hospital data from 2006 to 2011, we estimate that since the introduction of DRGs, hospitals have upcoded at least 12,000 preterm infants and gained additional reimbursement in excess of 100 million Euro. The scale of upcoding in German neonatology enables us to study the anatomy of cheating in a profession that otherwise claims to have high ethical standards. We show that upcoding is not only positively linked with the strength of financial incentives but also with expected treatment costs measured by poor newborn health conditional on weight. This suggests that doctors and midwives do not indisriminately upcode any potential preterm infant as a rational model of crime would predict. Rather, they may find it easier to cheat when this helps aligning the lump-sum reimbursement with the expected actual treatment costs. JEL Classification: I11, I18, D2

Roadmap zur ökonomischen Analyse von E-Health Anwendungen

E-health interventions are considered an important success factor in the continuous improvement of health care both nationally and internationally. Particularly in integrated care arrangements, they are an important infrastructural element. Of course, when developing new interventions and introducing them into the healthcare system, health economic evaluations (HEEs) are mandatory. From a healthcare organizational as well as governmental view, it is especially important that interventions are cost-effective and affordable. Consequently, there is a growing interest in studying digital intervention’s implications on healthcare costs. In order to enable a standardized procedure, the working group "E-Health" of the German Society for Health Economics has begun to develop a roadmap for the health economic evaluation of e-health interventions, which complements current recommendations that exist for Germany

Effect of an interprofessional care concept on the hospitalization of nursing home residents : study protocol for a cluster-randomized controlled trial

Background: The rising number of nursing home (NH) residents and their increasingly complex treatment needs pose a challenge to the German health care system. In Germany, there is no specialized geriatric medical care for NH residents. Nursing staff and general practitioners (GPs) in particular have to compensate for the additional demand, which is compounded by organizational and structural hurdles. As a result, avoidable emergency calls and hospital admissions occur. In the SaarPHIR project (Saarländische PflegeHeimversorgung Integriert Regelhaft), a complex intervention focusing on a medical care concept was developed in a participatory practice-based approach involving NH representatives and GPs. The complex intervention addresses the collaboration between nurses and GPs and aims to help restructure and optimize the existing daily care routine. It is expected to improve the medical care of geriatric patients in NHs and reduce stressful, costly hospital admissions. The intervention was pilot-tested during the first 12 months of the project. In the present study, its effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety will be evaluated. Methods: The study is a cluster-randomized controlled trial, comparing an intervention group with a control group. The intervention includes a concept of interprofessional collaboration, in which GPs group into regional cooperating teams. Teams are encouraged to cooperate more closely with NH staff and to provide on-call schedules, pre-weekend visits, joint team meetings, joint documentation, and improved medication safety. At least 32 NHs in Saarland, Germany (with at least 50 residents each) will be included and monitored for 12 months. The primary endpoint is hospitalization. Secondary endpoints are quality of life, quality of care, and medication safety. The control group receives treatment as usual. Process evaluation and health economic evaluation accompany the study. The data set contains claims data from German statutory health insurance companies as well as primary data. Analysis will be conducted using a generalized linear mixed model. Conclusion: A reduction in hospital admissions of NH residents and relevant changes in secondary endpoints are expected. In turn, these will have a positive impact on the economic assessment

A mHealth intervention to reduce perceived stress in patients with ischemic heart disease: study protocol of the randomized, controlled confirmatory intervention “mStress-IHD” trial

BackgroundStress is highly prevalent in patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD) and is associated with lower health-related quality of life and impaired cardiovascular outcome. The importance of stress management is now recognized in recent guidelines for the management of cardiovascular disease. However, effective stress management interventions are not implemented in clinical routine yet. The development of easily disseminated eHealth interventions, particularly mHealth, may offer a cost-effective and scalable solution to this problem. The aim of the proposed trial is to assess the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the mHealth intervention “mindfulHeart” in terms of reducing stress in patients with IHD.Methods and analysisThis randomized controlled confirmatory interventional trial with two parallel arms has assessments at six measurement time points: baseline (T0, prior randomization), post-treatment (T1), and four follow-ups at months 1, 3, 6, and 12 after intervention (T2, T3, T4, and T5). We will include patients with confirmed diagnosis of IHD, high-perceived stress, and use of an internet-enabled smartphone. Patients will be randomized into two groups (intervention vs. control). The proposed sample size calculation allocates 128 participants in total. The primary analysis will be performed in the intention-to-treat population, with missing data imputed. An ANCOVA with the outcome at T1, a between-subject factor (intervention vs. control), and the participants’ pre-intervention baseline values as a covariate will be used. Different ANOVAs, regression, and descriptive approaches will be performed for secondary analyses.EthicsThe Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Duisburg-Essen approved the study (22–11,015-BO).Trial registrationClinicalTrials NCT05846334. Release 26.04.2023

Navigating the Future of Organisational Health Services Research in Germany and beyond:a Position Paper

Background Recent analyses have shown that in health services research in Germany, healthcare organisations are often considered primarily as a study setting, without fully taking their complex organisational nature into account, neither theoretically nor methodologically. Therefore, an initiative was launched to analyse the state of Organisational Health Services Research (OHSR) in Germany and to develop a strategic framework and road map to guide future efforts in the field. This paper summarizes positions that have been jointly developed by consulting experts from the interdisciplinary and international scientific community.Methods In July 2023, a scoping workshop over the course of three days was held with 32 (inter)national experts from different research fields centred around OHSR topics using interactive workshop methods. Participants discussed their perspectives on OHSR, analysed current challenges in OHSR in Germany and developed key positions for the field’s development.Results The seven agreed-upon key positions addressed conceptual and strategic aspects. There was consensus that the field required the development of a research agenda that can guide future efforts. On a conceptual level, the need to address challenges in terms of interdisciplinarity, terminology, organisation(s) as research subjects, international comparative research and utilisation of organisational theory was recognized. On a strategic level, requirements with regard to teaching, promotion of interdisciplinary and international collaboration, suitable funding opportunities and participatory research were identified.Conclusions This position paper seeks to serve as a framework to support further development of OHSR in Germany and as a guide for researchers and funding organisations on how to move OHSR forward. Some of the challenges discussed for German OHSR are equally present in other countries. Thus, this position paper can be used to initiate fruitful discussions in other countries

Factors Influencing the Acceptability, Acceptance, and Adoption of Conversational Agents in Health Care: Integrative Review

BackgroundConversational agents (CAs), also known as chatbots, are digital dialog systems that enable people to have a text-based, speech-based, or nonverbal conversation with a computer or another machine based on natural language via an interface. The use of CAs offers new opportunities and various benefits for health care. However, they are not yet ubiquitous in daily practice. Nevertheless, research regarding the implementation of CAs in health care has grown tremendously in recent years. ObjectiveThis review aims to present a synthesis of the factors that facilitate or hinder the implementation of CAs from the perspectives of patients and health care professionals. Specifically, it focuses on the early implementation outcomes of acceptability, acceptance, and adoption as cornerstones of later implementation success. MethodsWe performed an integrative review. To identify relevant literature, a broad literature search was conducted in June 2021 with no date limits and using all fields in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, LIVIVO, and PsycINFO. To keep the review current, another search was conducted in March 2022. To identify as many eligible primary sources as possible, we used a snowballing approach by searching reference lists and conducted a hand search. Factors influencing the acceptability, acceptance, and adoption of CAs in health care were coded through parallel deductive and inductive approaches, which were informed by current technology acceptance and adoption models. Finally, the factors were synthesized in a thematic map. ResultsOverall, 76 studies were included in this review. We identified influencing factors related to 4 core Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) and Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2) factors (performance expectancy, effort expectancy, facilitating conditions, and hedonic motivation), with most studies underlining the relevance of performance and effort expectancy. To meet the particularities of the health care context, we redefined the UTAUT2 factors social influence, habit, and price value. We identified 6 other influencing factors: perceived risk, trust, anthropomorphism, health issue, working alliance, and user characteristics. Overall, we identified 10 factors influencing acceptability, acceptance, and adoption among health care professionals (performance expectancy, effort expectancy, facilitating conditions, social influence, price value, perceived risk, trust, anthropomorphism, working alliance, and user characteristics) and 13 factors influencing acceptability, acceptance, and adoption among patients (additionally hedonic motivation, habit, and health issue). ConclusionsThis review shows manifold factors influencing the acceptability, acceptance, and adoption of CAs in health care. Knowledge of these factors is fundamental for implementation planning. Therefore, the findings of this review can serve as a basis for future studies to develop appropriate implementation strategies. Furthermore, this review provides an empirical test of current technology acceptance and adoption models and identifies areas where additional research is necessary. Trial RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42022343690; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=34369

Herausforderungen bei der Evaluation von ePublic-Health-Anwendungen

Dörries M, Gensorowsky D, Köberlein-Neu J, Greiner W. Herausforderungen bei der Evaluation von ePublic-Health-Anwendungen. In: Dockweiler C, Fischer F, eds. ePublic Health. Einführung in ein neues Forschungs- und Anwendungsfeld. 1st ed. Bern: Hogrefe; 2019: 107-117

Why do family doctors prescribe potentially inappropriate medication to elderly patients?

Background Based on changes in pharmacokinetics and –dynamics in elderly patients, there are potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) that should be avoided in patients aged ≥ 65 years. Current studies showed prescription rates of PIM between 22.5 and 28.4 % in the primary care setting. The evidence concerning reasons for PIM prescription by FPs is limited. Methods This mixed method study consisted of three research parts: 1) semi-standardized content analysis of patients’ records, 2) qualitative interviews with FPs using a) open questions and b) selected patient-specific case vignettes and 3) qualitative interviews with FPs’ medical assistants. The integration of qualitative interviews was used to explain the quantitative results (triangulation design). PIM were identified according to the German PRISCUS list. Descriptive and multivariate statistical analysis was done using SPSS 22.0. Qualitative content analysis of interviews was used to classify the content of the interviews for indicating pertinent categories. All data were pseudonymously recorded and analyzed. Results Content analysis of 1846 patients’ records and interviews with 7 related FPs were conducted. Elderly patients [n = 1241, mean age: 76, females: 56.6 %] were characterized in average by 8.3 documented chronic diagnosis. 23.9 % of elderly patients received at least one PIM prescription. Sedatives/hypnotics were the most frequent prescribed PIM-drugs (13.7 %). Mental disorders, gender and number of long-term medication were detected as predictors for the probability of a PIM prescription. Common reported reasons for PIM prescription by FPs concerned limited knowledge regarding PIM, limited applicability of PIM lists in daily practice, lack of time, having no alternatives in medication, stronger patient-related factors than age that influence prescription, own bad experiences regarding changes of medication or refusal of following prescriptions of sedative/hypnotics. Conclusions It is essential to see FPs in a complex decision making situation with several influencing factors on their prescribing, including: patient-oriented prioritization, FPs’ experiences in daily practice, FPs’ knowledge regarding existing recommendations and their trust in it and organizational characteristics of FPs’ daily medical practice. These pros and cons of PIM prescription in elderly patients should be considered in FPs’ advanced training