E-Learning in der ALLGEMEINmedizinischen Aus-, Fort- und Weiterbildung : Erfahrungen aus der Allgemeinmedizin

Kurzfassung Vortrag: Fächerübergreifende Lehre und verpflichtende Fortbildung (CME) für Ärzte erfordern innovative Lernmethoden. Eine Lösung wird teilweise in der Nutzung elektronischer Medien gesehen. Unklar ist jedoch, wie konkret eine Umsetzung in der Aus-, Fort- und Weiterbildung im Fach Allgemeinmedizin bisher erfolgte, welche Chancen und Möglichkeiten es gibt und wie die weitere Entwicklung aussehen kann. Um einen Überblick über die aktuellen E-Learning-Aktivitäten zu erhalten, formierte sich eine universitäts- und bundesländerübergreifende Initiative. In drei Phasen soll die Grundlage für die Entwicklung einer Strategie für die effektive Nutzung elektronischer Lehr- und Lernmedien für das Fach Allgemeinmedizin geschaffen werden: Phase 1 - Nationales Expertentreffen (Juli 2005 in Frankfurt): Diskussion von Erfahrungen, Problemen und Möglichkeiten des Einsatzes elektronischer Medien in der Allgemeinmedizin. Phase 2 - Gründung eines Netzwerks: Zusammenarbeit, Koordination und gegenseitige Unterstützung bei der Entwicklung von E-Learning-Modulen. Phase 3 - Evaluation von E-Learning in der Allgemeinmedizin: systematische qualitative und quantitative Untersuchungen. Im Rahmen eines Workshops sollen die Erfahrungen aus dem Expertentreffen mit Lehrenden und Fortbildenden aus anderen Fachbereichen diskutiert werden. Kooperationen über die Allgemeinmedizin hinaus können weitere Synergien schaffen. Der Workshop dient dem Austausch über Chancen und Limitationen entsprechender Angebote

Reported barriers to evaluation in chronic care: experiences in six European countries.

INTRODUCTION: The growing movement of innovative approaches to chronic disease management in Europe has not been matched by a corresponding effort to evaluate them. This paper discusses challenges to evaluation of chronic disease management as reported by experts in six European countries. METHODS: We conducted 42 semi-structured interviews with key informants from Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, The Netherlands and Spain involved in decision-making and implementation of chronic disease management approaches. Interviews were complemented by a survey on approaches to chronic disease management in each country. Finally two project teams (France and the Netherlands) conducted in-depth case studies on various aspects of chronic care evaluation. RESULTS: We identified three common challenges to evaluation of chronic disease management approaches: (1) a lack of evaluation culture and related shortage of capacity; (2) reluctance of payers or providers to engage in evaluation and (3) practical challenges around data and the heterogeity of IT infrastructure. The ability to evaluate chronic disease management interventions is influenced by contextual and cultural factors. CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes to our understanding of some of the most common underlying barriers to chronic care evaluation by highlighting the views and experiences of stakeholders and experts in six European countries. Overcoming the cultural, political and structural barriers to evaluation should be driven by payers and providers, for example by building in incentives such as feedback on performance, aligning financial incentives with programme objectives, collectively participating in designing an appropriate framework for evaluation, and making data use and accessibility consistent with data protection policies

The CUPCIG (CAM-Use in Primary Care in Germany) Study:Part I-Pain. Study Protocol of a Pilot-trial to Assess Feasibility, Acceptability and Perceived Effectiveness of CAM in Pain Disorders in Primary Care

Background: There is limited valid data available on CAM procedures for chronic joint and neuropathic pain in primary care in Germany. Indiviual CAM qualifications of the general practitioners (GPs) and the potential of cost reduction through CAM treatment are almost unknown. The aim of this pilot trial preceding the main study is to examine the survey mode, to estimate the response rate by GPs with or without an additional qualification for CAM, and to identify the status quo in therapeutic approaches for chronic pain disorders in primary care. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study with an ex post facto design among German GPs consisting of 2 parts: In a first step, a pilot trial precedes the main study targeting 200 GPs with and 200 GPs without additional qualification in CAM in a selected region. Results: The results of the CUPCIG study comprise the distribution of pain types treated in primary care practices, the GPs' attitude toward complementary pain therapy, pharmacological or CAM treatment, the estimate of cost reduction through CAM treatment of pain, the application of diverse CAM procedures, and biographical data. Discussion: The CUPCIG study serves to compile pain therapy approaches in primary care in Germany with respect to the individual CAM expertise of the GPs

Factors influencing the implementation of person-centred care in nursing homes by practice development champions: a qualitative process evaluation of a cluster-randomised controlled trial (EPCentCare) using Normalization Process Theory

Background: Person-centred care (PCC) has been suggested as the preferred model of dementia care in all settings. The EPCentCare study showed that an adapted PCC approach was difficult to implement and had no effect on prescription of antipsychotics in nursing home residents in Germany. This paper reports the qualitative process evaluation to identify facilitators and barriers of the implementation of PCC in German nursing homes from the perspective of participating practice development champions. Methods: Five individual and 14 group interviews were conducted with 66 participants (staff and managers) from 18 nursing homes. The analysis was based on inductive coding to identify factors influencing the PCC implementation process. Identified factors were systematised and structured by mapping them to the four constructs (coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, reflexive monitoring) of the Normalization Process Theory (NPT) as a framework that explains implementation processes. Results: Facilitating implementation factors included among others broadening of the care perspective (coherence), tolerance development within the care team regarding challenging behaviour (cognitive participation), testing new approaches to solutions as a multi-professional team (collective action), and perception of effects of PCC measures (reflexive monitoring). Among the facilitating factors reported in all the NPT constructs, thus affecting the entire implementation process, were the involvement of relatives, multi-professional teamwork and effective collaboration with physicians. Barriers implied uncertainties about the implementation and expectation of a higher workload (coherence), concerns about the feasibility of PCC implementation in terms of human resources (cognitive participation), lack of a person-centred attitude by colleagues or the institution (collective action), and doubts about the effects of PCC (reflexive monitoring). Barriers influencing the entire implementation process comprised insufficient time resources, lack of support, lack of involvement of the multi-professional team, and difficulties regarding communication with the attending physicians. Conclusions: The findings provide a comprehensive and detailed overview of facilitators and barriers structured along the implementation process. Thus, our findings may assist both researchers and clinicians to develop and reflect more efficiently on PCC implementation processes in nursing homes

Safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in older adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Introduction: We aimed to assess the safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in older patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycaemic control. Methods: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in older (> 65 years) patients with type 2 diabetes. The intervention group was randomized to treatment with any DPP-4 inhibitors. A systematic search in MEDLINE and Embase was performed in December 2020. For assessing the risk of bias, RoB 2 tool was applied. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We pooled outcomes using random effects meta-analyses. Results: We identified 16 RCTs that included 19,317 patients with a mean age of greater than 70 years. The mean HbA1c level ranged between 7.1 and 10.0 g/dl. Adding DPP-4 inhibitors to standard care alone may increase mortality slightly [risk ratio (RR) 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89-1.21]. Adding DPP-4 inhibitors to standard care increases the risk for hypoglycaemia (RR 1.08; 95% CI 1.01-1.16), but difference in overall adverse events is negligible. DPP-4 inhibitors added to standard care may reduce mortality compared with sulfonylureas (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.75-1.04). DPP-4 inhibitors probably reduce the risk for hypoglycaemia compared with sulfonylureas (magnitude of effect not quantifiable because of heterogeneity) but difference in overall adverse events is negligible. There is insufficient evidence on hospitalizations, falls, fractures, renal impairment and pancreatitis. Conclusion: There is no evidence that DPP-4 inhibitors in addition to standard care decrease mortality but DPP-4 inhibitors increase hypoglycaemia risk. Second-line therapy in older patients should be considered cautiously even in drugs with a good safety profile such as DPP-4 inhibitors. In case second-line treatment is necessary, DPP-4 inhibitors appear to be preferable to sulfonylureas. Plain language summary Safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in older adults with type 2 diabetes Introduction: We performed the review to assess the safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in older type 2 diabetes patients with blood sugar outside the normal level. Methods: To answer the question, we searched various electronic databases. We included studies in older (> 65 years) patients with type 2 diabetes that assessed the safety of DPP-4 inhibitors. The data from the different studies were quantitatively summarized using statistical methods. We assessed the quality of the data to judge the certainty of the findings. Results: We identified 16 studies that included 19,317 patients with a mean age greater than 70 years. The average blood sugar level of patients in the included studies was slightly or moderately increased. Adding DPP-4 inhibitors to standard care alone may increase mortality slightly. Adding DPP-4 inhibitors to standard care increases the risk for hypoglycaemia, but difference in overall adverse events is negligible. DPP-4 inhibitors added to standard care may reduce mortality compared with sulfonylureas. DPP-4s probably reduce the risk of hypoglycaemia compared with sulfonylureas (magnitude of effect not quantifiable because of heterogeneity) but difference in overall adverse events is negligible. There is insufficient evidence on hospitalizations, falls, fractures, renal impairment and pancreatitis. Conclusion: There is no evidence that DPP-4 inhibitors in addition to standard care decrease mortality but DPP-4 inhibitors increase the risk that blood sugar falls below normal. Adding DPP-4 inhibitorss to standard care in older patients should be considered cautiously even in drugs with a good safety profile such as DPP-4 inhibitors. In case additional treatment is necessary, DPP-4 inhibitors appear to be preferable to sulfonylureas

The impact of a disease management programme for type 2 diabetes on health-related quality of life: multilevel analysis of a cluster-randomised controlled trial

Abstract Background Type 2 diabetes is a chronic disease associated with poorer health outcomes and decreased health related quality of life (HRQoL). The aim of this analysis was to explore the impact of a disease management programme (DMP) in type 2 diabetes on HRQoL. A multilevel model was used to explain the variation in EQ-VAS. Methods A cluster-randomized controlled trial—analysis of the secondary endpoint HRQoL. Our study population were general practitioners and patients in the province of Salzburg. The DMP “Therapie-Aktiv” was implemented in the intervention group, and controls received usual care. Outcome measure was a change in EQ-VAS after 12 months. For comparison of rates, we used Fisher’s Exact test; for continuous variables the independent T test or Welch test were used. In the multilevel modeling, we examined various models, continuously adding variables to explain the variation in the dependent variable, starting with an empty model, including only the random intercept. We analysed random effects parameters in order to disentangle variation of the final EQ-VAS. Results The EQ-VAS significantly increased within the intervention group (mean difference 2.19, p = 0.005). There was no significant difference in EQ-VAS between groups (mean difference 1.00, p = 0.339). In the intervention group the improvement was more distinct in women (2.46, p = 0.036) compared to men (1.92, p = 0.063). In multilevel modeling, sex, age, family and work circumstances, any macrovascular diabetic complication, duration of diabetes, baseline body mass index and baseline EQ-VAS significantly influence final EQ-VAS, while DMP does not. The final model explains 28.9% (EQ-VAS) of the total variance. Most of the unexplained variance was found on patient-level (95%) and less on GP-level (5%). Conclusion DMP “Therapie-Aktiv” has no significant impact on final EQ-VAS. The impact of DMPs in type 2 diabetes on HRQoL is still unclear and future programmes should focus on patient specific needs and predictors in order to improve HRQoL. Trial registration Current Controlled trials Ltd., ISRCTN2741416

Experiences of participants of a volunteer-supported walking intervention to improve physical function of nursing home residents – a mixed methods sub-study of the POWER-project

Abstract Background Regular physical activity improves physical health and mental well-being and reduces the risk of falling in older adults. The randomized controlled “Prevention by lay-assisted Outdoor-Walking in the Elderly at Risk” POWER-study investigates whether volunteer-supported outdoor-walking improves physical function and quality of life in older people living independently or in nursing homes. This sub-study explores the experiences of older participants and volunteers in relation to their physical and psychosocial well-being as well as the challenges faced by both groups. A further aim was to explore volunteers’ experience with people living in nursing homes during the first pandemic lockdown (spring 2020). Methods The sub-study was designed as mixed-methods approach consisting of 11 individual semi-structured guide-based interviews (nursing home residents), two focus group interviews (volunteers), and a cross-sectional questionnaire survey (volunteers). The interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed by content analysis as described by Kuckartz. Topics addressed in the interviews were triangulated by means of a questionnaire. The quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results Participants’ evaluation of the intervention was generally positive. Nursing home residents appreciated the social interaction associated with the assisted walking, which motivated them to take part regularly, provided a sense of safety, and caused pleasure on both sides. The impact on physical health status of the nursing home residents of this sub-study varied to a large degree as reported in interviews: in some cases, an improvement in physical performance, a decrease in physical complaints, and an improvement in gait or independence was reported. If not, reference was made to previous or sudden illnesses and the advanced age of the participants. Despite the COVID-19-lockdown and the associated restrictions, about 60% of contacts were still possible and participants planned to continue the assisted walks after the lockdown. Conclusion Volunteers have a positive effect on the quality of life, mobility, and general health of nursing home residents. Even more than the improvement of physical performance, social interaction was seen as helpful. Despite their advanced age, the nursing home residents were curious and open to new contacts. When removing the identified barriers, it might be possible to integrate this program into the long-term everyday life of nursing homes. Trial registration DRKS-ID: DRKS00015188, date of registration: 31.08.2018

Evaluating the accuracy of a simple heuristic to identify serious causes of low back pain

Background. Among patients presenting with low back pain (LBP), GPs have to identify those with serious, treatable conditions. However, excluding these conditions in every patient with LPB is time consuming and of low yield. We have suggested that identifying those patients where these serious conditions need to be considered can be made more efficient through asking patient if they feel their LBP is new or unfamiliar in some way. Objective. To evaluate the diagnostic validity of a simple heuristic based on the patient's view of the familiarity of LBP. Methods. Cross-sectional diagnostic study with delayed-type reference standard, nested within a three-arm randomized trial of quality improvement for LBP. A total of 1378 patients presenting, with LBP, to one of 126 participating GPs were included. They were asked whether their LBP was familiar or not (index test). At 1 year, patients were interviewed with regard to relevant conditions that in hindsight might explain their LBP. Reviewers deciding on disease status (reference standard) were blinded to the results of the index test. Results. Totally 1190 patients answered the index test question and were available for interview at 1 year. Only four of these had a serious cause of their LBP. Two of these were identified by the familiarity heuristic, resulting in low sensitivity. Conclusion. The number of diseased patients was too small to obtain a reliable estimate of sensitivity. Low prevalence of serious disease in primary care poses difficulties for diagnostic research. In hindsight we would question whether an RCT-setting emphasizing non-specific LBP is suitable for this kind of research. At present, the familiarity heuristic cannot be recommended for patients presenting with LBP