IntroductionClinically complex patients often require multiple medications. Polypharmacy is associated with inappropriate prescriptions, which may lead to negative outcomes. Few effective tools are available to help physicians optimise patient medication. This study assesses whether an electronic medication management support system (eMMa) reduces hospitalisation and mortality and improves prescription quality/safety in patients with polypharmacy.Methods and analysisPlanned design: pragmatic, parallel cluster-randomised controlled trial; general practices as randomisation unit; patients as analysis unit. As practice recruitment was poor, we included additional data to our primary endpoint analysis for practices and quarters from October 2017 to March 2021. Since randomisation was performed in waves, final study design corresponds to a stepped-wedge design with open cohort and step-length of one quarter. Scope: general practices, Westphalia-Lippe (Germany), caring for BARMER health fund-covered patients. Population: patients (≥18 years) with polypharmacy (≥5 prescriptions). Sample size: initially, 32 patients from each of 539 practices were required for each study arm (17 200 patients/arm), but only 688 practices were randomised after 2 years of recruitment. Design change ensures that 80% power is nonetheless achieved. Intervention: complex intervention eMMa. Follow-up: at least five quarters/cluster (practice). recruitment: practices recruited/randomised at different times; after follow-up, control group practices may access eMMa. Outcomes: primary endpoint is all-cause mortality and hospitalisation; secondary endpoints are number of potentially inappropriate medications, cause-specific hospitalisation preceded by high-risk prescribing and medication underuse. Statistical analysis: primary and secondary outcomes are measured quarterly at patient level. A generalised linear mixed-effect model and repeated patient measurements are used to consider patient clusters within practices. Time and intervention group are considered fixed factors; variation between practices and patients is fitted as random effects. Intention-to-treat principle is used to analyse primary and key secondary endpoints.Ethics and disseminationTrial approved by Ethics Commission of North-Rhine Medical Association. Results will be disseminated through workshops, peer-reviewed publications, local and international conferences.Trial registrationNCT03430336. ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03430336).

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. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00017129. Registered on 23 April 2019. https://www.drks.de/drks_web/setLocale_EN.do.

Background To investigate patients’ perspectives on polypharmacy and the use of a digital decision support system to assist general practitioners (GPs) in performing medication reviews. Methods Qualitative interviews with patients or informal caregivers recruited from participants in a cluster-randomized controlled clinical trial (cRCT). The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results We conducted 13 interviews and identified the following seven themes: the patients successfully integrated medication use in their everyday lives, used medication plans, had both good and bad personal experiences with their drugs, regarded their healthcare providers as the main source of medication-related information, discussed medication changes with their GPs, had trusting relationships with them, and viewed the use of digital decision support tools for medication reviews positively. No unwanted adverse effects were reported. Conclusions Despite drug-related problems, patients appeared to cope well with their medications. They also trusted their GPs, despite acknowledging polypharmacy to be a complex field for them. The use of a digital support system was appreciated and linked to the hope that reasons for selecting specific medication regimens would become more comprehensible. Further research with a more diverse sampling might add more patient perspectives. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03430336. Registered on February 6, 2018.

Background: Interventional studies on polypharmacy often fail to significantly improve patient-relevant outcomes, or confine themselves to measuring surrogate parameters. Interventions and settings are complex, with many factors affecting results. The AdAM study’s aim is to reduce hospitalization and death by requiring general practitioners (GPs) to use a computerized decision-support system (CDSS). The study will undergo a process evaluation to identify factors for successful implementation and to assess whether the intervention was implemented as intended. Objective: To evaluate our complex intervention, based on the Medical Research Council’s guideline dimensions. Research Questions: We will assess implementation (reach, fidelity, dose, tailoring) by asking: (1) Who took part in the intervention (proportion of GPs using the CDSS, proportion of patients enrolled in them)? Information on GPs’ and patients’ characteristics will also be collected. (2) How many and which medication alerts were dealt with? (3) Was the intervention implemented as intended? (4) On what days did GPs use the intervention tool? Methods: The process evaluation is part of a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized controlled trial. Characteristics of practices, GPs and patients using the CDSS will be compared with the non-participating population. CDSS log data will be analyzed to evaluate how the number of medication alerts changed between baseline and 2 months later, and to identify the kind of alerts that were dealt with. Comparison of enrolled patients on weekdays versus weekends will shed light on GPs’ use of the CDSS in the absence or presence of patients. Outcomes will be presented using descriptive statistics, and significance tests will be used to identify associations between them. We will conduct subgroup analyses, including time effects to account for software improvements. Discussion: This study protocol is the basis for conducting analyses of the quantitative process evaluation. By providing insight into how GPs conduct medication reviews, the evaluation will provide context to the trial results and support their interpretation. The evaluation relies on the proper documentation by GPs, potentially limiting its explanatory power.

Background The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic reached Germany between March and May 2020. In order to contain the spread of the virus and particularly protect vulnerable people, the government imposed a lockdown in March 2020. In addition to infection control measures, such as hygiene and social distancing requirements, a general ban on access to nursing homes for relatives and external service providers was issued. Methods To investigate the challenges and consequences of the enacted infection prevention measures and specific strategies for nursing homes in Germany, a multicentre cross-sectional qualitative interview study with nursing home managers and ward managers was conducted. Recorded audio data were transcribed, analysed using thematic framework analysis and reflected in peer debriefings. Results Seventy-eight interviews with 40 nursing home managers and 38 ward managers from 43 German nursing homes were conducted. At organisational level, the following six themes were identified: Appointing a multi-professional crisis task force, reorganizing the use of building and spatial structures, continuous adaption and implementation of hygiene plans, adapting staff deployment to dynamically changing demands, managing additional communicative demands and relying on and resorting to informal networks. To deal with the pandemic challenges also six themes can be described for the direct care level: Changed routines, taking over non-nursing tasks, increased medical responsibility, increased documentation demands, promoting social participation and increased communication demands. Also various negative consequences were identified (four themes): Psychological stress, negative emotional consequences, permanent feeling of responsibility and increased potential for conflicts. Positive emotional consequences were also reported (two themes): resources for the challenges and positive emotional consequences for home managers and staff. Conclusions The results of the described challenges, strategies and consequences allow recommendations as basis for possible approaches and successful adaptation processes in nursing home care in the future. In particular, there is a need for local networks to act in a coordinated way and a need for quantitative and qualitative support for nurses, such as staff support as well as advanced nursing practice, to cope with the challenges of the pandemic.

Background The Implementation Leadership Scale (ILS) was developed to assess leadership behavior with regard to being proactive, knowledgeable, supportive, or perseverant in implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs). As part of a study on the implementation of a digitally supported polypharmacy management application in primary care, the original ILS was translated and validated for use in the German language. Rationale This study aimed to translate the original ILS into German and evaluate its psychometric properties. Methods The validation sample consisted of 198 primary care physicians in a cluster-randomized controlled trial in which the intervention group implemented a digitally supported clinical decision support system for polypharmacy management. The ILS was assessed using a 12-item scale. The study included a process evaluation with two evaluation waves between 2019 and 2021. The ILS was used within this process evaluation study to assess the leadership support with regard to the implementation of the polypharmacy management. The ILS was translated in a multi-step process, including pre-testing of the instrument and triple, back-and-forth translation of the instrument. We tested the reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) and validity (construct and criterion-related validity) of the scale. Results The four-dimensional structure of the instrument was confirmed (comparative fit index = .97; root mean square error of approximation = .06). Convergent validity was demonstrated by correlations with organizational innovation climate, social capital, and workload, which was consistent with the proposed hypothesis. Criterion-related validity of the ILS was demonstrated by predicting the organizational readiness for change scores using structural equation modeling. The reliability of the scale was good (α = .875). Conclusion The German version of the ILS created in this study is a reliable and valid measure. The original four-dimensional structure of the ILS was confirmed in a primary care setting. Further psychometric testing is needed to establish the validity and reliability of the ILS and to transfer it to other health care settings. It is a useful tool for identifying the areas for implementation leadership development. Further research is needed on how, why, and when distinct types of leadership behaviors have different effects on healthcare organizations in implementation processes.

Background Implementation of evidence-based healthcare practices (EBPs) is a complex endeavour and is often lagging behind research-informed decision processes. Understanding and systematically improving implementation using implementation theory can help bridge the gap between research findings and practice. This study aims to translate, pilot and validate the German version of the NoMAD questionnaire (G-NoMAD), an instrument derived from Normalization Process Theory, to be used to explore the implementation of EBPs. Methods Survey data has been collected in four German research projects and subsequently combined into a validation data set. Two versions of the G-NoMAD existed, independently translated from the original English version by two research groups. A measurement invariance analysis was conducted comparing latent scale structures between groups of respondents to both versions. After determining the baseline model, the questionnaire was tested for different degrees of invariance (configural, metric, scalar, and uniqueness) across samples. A confirmatory factor analysis for three models (a four factor, a unidimensional, and a hierarchical model) was used to examine the theoretical structure of the G-NoMAD. Finally, psychometric results were discussed in a consensus meeting and the final instructions, items, and scale format were agreed. Results A total of 539 health care professionals completed the questionnaire. The results of the measurement invariance analysis showed configural, partial metric and partial scalar invariance indicating that the questionnaire versions are comparable. Internal consistency ranged from acceptable to good (0.79 ≤ α ≤ 0.85) per subscale. Both the four factor and the hierarchical model achieved a better fit than the unidimensional model, with indices from acceptable (SRMR = 0.08) to good (CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.96). However, the RMSEA values were only close to acceptable (four-factor model: χ2164 = 1029.84, RMSEA = 0.10; hierarchical model: χ2166 = 1073.43, RMSEA = 0.10). Conclusions The G-NoMAD provides a reliable and promising tool to measure the degree of normalization among individuals involved in implementation activities. Since the fit was similar in both the four factor and the hierarchical model, priority should be given to the practical relevance of the hierarchical model which includes a total score and four subscale scores. The findings of this study support the further usage of the G-NoMAD in German implementation settings. Trial registration Both the AdAM project (No. NCT03430336, 06/02/2018) and the EU-project ImpleMentAll (No. NCT03652883, 29/08/2018) were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. The ImplementIT study was registered at the German Clinical Trial Registration (No. DRKS00017078, 18/04/2019). The G-NoMAD validation study was registered at the Open Science Framework (No7u9ab, 17/04/2023).

Zusammenfassung. Hintergrund: Während der ersten Welle der COVID-19-Pandemie galten in der stationären Altenpflege in Deutschland strenge Regeln zum Infektionsschutz, die Beschäftigte und Bewohner_innen belasteten und diese sozial isolierten. Beides sind Risikofaktoren für Gewalt in der stationären Altenpflege. Fragestellungen: Wie entwickelte sich unter Pandemiebedingungen aus Sicht von Leitungspersonen das Gewaltgeschehen in der stationären Altenpflege und wie veränderten sich Strategien zur Prävention von Gewalt? Methoden: In 43 Einrichtungen wurden leitfadengestützte Telefoninterviews mit 25 Einrichtungs- und 15 Pflegedienstleitungen sowie 28 Wohnbereichsleitungen und 10 Pflegefachpersonen mit erweiterten Aufgaben durchgeführt, audiotechnisch aufgenommen, transkribiert und nach der „Thematic framework analysis“ in fünf Analyseschritten ausgewertet. Ergebnisse: Maßnahmen des Infektionsschutzes wurden als Freiheitsentzug wahrgenommen. Bewohner_innen, Angehörige und Beschäftigte reagierten teils mit verbaler Gewalt. Für die Leitungspersonen war das Thema Gewalt wenig präsent, Präventionsmaßnahmen wurden nicht durchgeführt. Schlussfolgerungen: Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass Strategien zur Prävention von Gewalt in den einbezogenen Einrichtungen nicht hinreichend verankert sind und den Bedingungen der Pandemie angepasst werden müssen. Weitere Forschung ist notwendig, um Maßnahmen zum Infektionsschutz in ihrem Potenzial zur Erhöhung des Gewaltvorkommens zu evaluieren.