While many interventions to improve polypharmacy focus on the provision of pharmacological knowledge, a much wider range of domains need to be addressed, such as communication skills, patient involvement and practice organization.

BackgroundThe provision of high-quality medical care to asylum seekers represents a key challenge in many countries of the European Union. Especially continuity of care has been difficult to achieve as the migrant trajectory moves asylum seekers across and within European countries. Patient-held personal health records (PHR) have been proposed to facilitate the transfer of medical history between health sectors and providers, but so far there is no data to support its use in the migrant setting. The present paper addresses this knowledge gap by exploring the experiences and practices of healthcare providers in reception centers for asylum seekers using a patient-held PHR as well as the perceived associated benefits and shortcomings.MethodsEarly evaluation by means of a multi-sited qualitative study in six asylum seeker reception centers in five cities in the German state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, conducted between November 2016 and January 2017. The PHR evaluated in this study was implemented in five of these reception centers between February and October 2016; the remaining one only receiving patients with the PHR through transfer from the other facilities. 17 interviews were conducted with physicians and nurses working at these reception centers exploring their experiences, routines, and perspectives regarding the patient-held PHR. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed following the approach of thematic analysis.ResultsHealthcare providers recognise the potential of a patient-held PHR to improve access to medical history. They use the PHR to document their medical consultations and to collect other medical reports. However, physician adherence to the patient-held PHR was described as unsatisfactory, in particular among external doctors, thus limiting its immediate benefit. Reasons given for this low adherence included lack of information before implementation, demanding working conditions with little support, low perceived benefits depending on the degree of fragmentation of settings, parallel existence of other documentation platforms and strained patient relationships.ConclusionA patient-held PHR could improve the availability of health-related information in reception centers if a context-sensitive implementation process achieves high adherence to the PHR among physicians as well as high patient compliance and includes guidelines regarding its adequate integration into local routines.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12992-018-0394-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Strategies to improve the care of elderly, multimorbid patients frequently focus on implementing evidence-based knowledge by structured assessments and standardization of care. In Germany, disease management programs (DMPs), for example, are run by general practitioners (GPs) for this purpose. While the importance of such measures is undeniable, there is a risk of ignoring other dimensions of care which are essential, especially for elderly patients: their spiritual needs and personal resources, loneliness and social integration, and self-care (i.e., the ability of patients to do something on their own except taking medications to increase their well-being). The aim of this study is to explore whether combining DMPs with interventions to address these dimensions is feasible and has any impact on relevant outcomes in elderly patients with polypharmacy. Methods An explorative, cluster-randomized controlled trial with general practices as the unit of randomization will be conducted and accompanied by a process evaluation. Patients aged 70 years or older with at least three chronic conditions receiving at least three medications participating in at least one DMP will be included. The control group will receive DMP as usual. In the intervention group, GPs will conduct a spiritual needs assessment during the routinely planned DMP appointments and explore whether the patient has a need for more social contact or self-care. To enable GPs to react to such needs, several aids will be provided by the study: a) training of GPs in spiritual needs assessment and training of medical assistants in patient counseling regarding self-care and social activity; b) access to a summary of regional social offers for seniors; and c) information leaflets on nonpharmacological interventions (e.g., home remedies) to be applied by patients themselves to reduce frequent symptoms in old age. The primary outcome is health-related self-efficacy (using the Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease 6-Item Scale (SES-6G)). Secondary outcomes are general self-efficacy (using the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES)), physical and mental health (using the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12)), patient activation (using the Patient Activation Measure (PAM)), medication adherence (using the Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS)), beliefs in medicine (using the Beliefs About Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ)), satisfaction with GP care (using selected items of the European Project on Patient Evaluation of General Practice (EUROPEP)), social contacts (using the 6-item Lubben Social Network Scale (LSNS-6)), and loneliness (using the 11-item De-Jong-Gierveld Loneliness Scale (DJGS-11)). Interviews will be conducted to assess the mechanisms, feasibility, and acceptability of the interventions. Discussion If the interventions prove to be effective and feasible, large-scale implementation should be sought and evaluated by a confirmatory design. Trial registration ...

No abstract

Background: The aim of this umbrella review was to summarize the research evidence on programs to improve the transition between ambulatory and hospital care. Methods: The MEDLINE database and the Cochrane library were searched. Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials published between January 2000 and September 2018 in English or German were included. Studies were eligible if an assessment or coordination intervention had been evaluated and if patients had been transferred between hospital (defined as internal medicine, surgery, or unspecified hospital setting) and home (defined as any permanent residence). Risk of bias was assessed using the AMSTAR criteria. Results are presented descriptively and in table format. Results: Thirty-nine systematic reviews comprising 492 different studies were included. More than half of these studies were conducted in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. All studies evaluated strategies to improve discharge management (introduced after patients' arrival at the hospital); no study assessed strategies to improve admission management (initiated in primary care before patients' transition to hospital). The reviews included focused on a specific patient group, a specific intervention type, or a specific outcome. Overall, interventions focusing on elderly patients and high-intensity interventions seemed to be most effective. An overview of classifications of care transition strategies is provided. Conclusions: Future research should focus on hospital admission management programs.

Background Hospitalisations are a critical event in the care process. Insufficient communication and uncoordinated follow-up care often impede the recovery process of the patient resulting in a high number of rehospitalisations and increased health care costs. The overall aim of this study is the development, implementation and evaluation of a structured programme (VESPEERA) to improve the admission and discharge process. Methods We will conduct an open quasi-experimental multi-centre study with four intervention arms. A cohort selected from insurance claims data will serve as a control group reflecting usual care. The intervention will be implemented in 25 hospital departments and 115 general practices in 9 districts in Baden-Wurttemberg. Eligibility criteria for patients are: age > 18 years, hospital admission or hospitalisation, insurance at the sickness fund “AOK Baden-Wurttemberg”, enrolment in general practice-centred care contract. Each study arm will receive different intervention components based on the point of study enrolment and the patient’s medical need. The interventions comprise a) a structured assessment in the general practice prior to admission resulting in an admission letter b) a discharge conversation by phone between hospital and general practice, c) a structured assessment and care plan post-discharge and d) telephone monitoring for patients with a high risk of rehospitalisation. The assessments are supported by a software tool (“CareCockpit”), originally developed for structured case management programmes. The primary outcome (rehospitalisation due to the same indication within 90 days) and a range of secondary outcomes (rehospitalisation due to the same indication within 30 days; hospitalisations due to ambulatory care-sensitive conditions; delayed prescription of medication and medical products/ devices and referral to other health practitioner/s after discharge; utilisation of emergency or rescue services within 3 months; average care cost per year and patient participating in the VESPEERA programme) and quality indicators will be determined based on insurance claims data and CareCockpit data. Additionally, a patient survey on satisfaction with cross-sectoral care and health related quality of life will be conducted. Discussion Based on the results, area-wide implementation in usual care is well sought. This study will contribute to an improvement of cross-sectoral care during the admission and discharge process. Trial registration DRKS00014294 on DRKS / Universal Trial Number (UTN): U1111–1210-9657, Date of registration 12/06/2018.

IntroductionHospital stays are critical events as they often disrupt continuity of care. This process evaluation aims to describe and explore the implementation of the VESPEERA programme (Improving continuity of patient care across sectors: An admission and discharge model in general practices and hospitals, Versorgungskontinuitaet sichern: Patientenorientiertes Einweisungs- und Entlassmanagement in Hausarztpraxen und Krankenhauesern). The evaluation concerns the intervention fidelity, reach in targeted populations, perceived effects, working mechanisms, feasibility, determinants for implementation, including contextual factors, and associations with the outcomes evaluation. The aim of the VESPEERA programme is the development, implementation and evaluation of a structured admission and discharge programme in general practices and hospitals.Methods and analysisThe process evaluation is linked to the VESPEERA outcomes evaluation, which has a quasi-experimental multi-centre design with four study arms and is conducted in hospitals and general practices in Germany. The VESPEERA programme comprises several components: an assessment before admission, an admission letter, a telephonic discharge conversation between hospital and general practice before discharge, discharge information for patients, structured planning of follow-up care after discharge in the general practice and a telephone monitoring for patients with a risk of rehospitalisation. The process evaluation has a mixed-methods design, incorporating interviews (patients, both care providers who do and do not participate in the VESPEERA programme, total n=75), questionnaires (patients and care providers who participate in the VESPEERA programme, total n=475), implementation plans of hospitals, data documented in general practices, claims-based data and hospital process data. Data analysis is descriptive and explorative. Qualitative data will be transcribed and analysed using framework analysis based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Associations between the outcomes of the program and measures in the process evaluation will be explored in regression models.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval has been obtained by the ethics committee of the Medical Faculty Heidelberg prior to the start of the study (S-352/2018). Results will be disseminated through a final report to the funding agency, articles in peer-reviewed journals and conferences.Trial registration number http://www.drks.de/DRKS00015183.Trial statusThe study protocol on hand is the protocol V.1.1 from 18 June 2018. Recruitment for interviews started on 3 September 2018 and will approximately be completed by the end of May 2019.

IntroductionThe aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a patient-held health record (PHR) for asylum seekers on the availability of health-related information.MethodsAn explorative, cluster-randomised stepped-wedge trial with reception centres as unit of randomisation was conducted. All reception centres (n=6) in two large administrative areas in South Germany with on-site health services were included. All physicians working at these centres were invited to participate in the study. The intervention was the implementation of a PHR. The primary outcome was the prevalence of written health-related information. Secondary outcomes were the physicians’ dissatisfaction with the available written information and the prevalence of missing health-related information. All outcomes were measured at the level of patient–physician contacts by means of a standardised questionnaire, and analysed in logistic multi-level regression models.ResultsWe obtained data on 2308 patient–physician contacts. The presence of the PHR increased the availability of health-related information (adjusted OR (aOR), 20.3, 95% CI: 12.74 to 32.33), and tended to reduce missing essential information (aOR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.39 to 1.26) and physicians’ dissatisfaction with available information (aOR 0.5, 95% CI: 0.24 to 1.04). The availability of health-related information in the post-intervention period was higher (aOR 4.22, 95% CI: 2.64 to 6.73), missing information (aOR 0.89, 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.88) and dissatisfaction (aOR 0.43, 95% CI: 0.16 to 1.14) tended to be lower compared with the pre-intervention period.ConclusionsHealthcare planners should consider introducing PHRs in reception centres or comparable facilities. Future research should focus on the impact of PHRs on clinical outcomes and on intersectoral care.Trial registrationISRCTN13212716. Registered 24 November 2016. Retrospectively registered. http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13212716