Zusammenfassung Hintergrund Das Angebot an Palliativversorgung hat in Deutschland stark zugenommen. Weitgehend unbekannt ist, wie viele Menschen am Lebensende welche palliativen Versorgungsformen in Anspruch nehmen und welche regionalen Unterschiede bestehen. Methode Retrospektive Kohortenstudie mit GKV-Routinedaten (BARMER) über Versicherte mit Sterbedatum im Jahr 2016: Anhand einer mindestens einmalig abgerechneten Leistung in den letzten 6 Lebensmonaten wurde die Inanspruchnahme allgemeiner ambulanter Palliativversorgung (AAPV), spezialisierter ambulanter Palliativversorgung (SAPV) sowie stationärer Palliativ- und Hospizversorgung ermittelt. Erstmals wurden auch Abrechnungsziffern kassenärztlicher Vereinigungen und selektivvertragliche Sonderziffern für palliativmedizinische Leistungen sowie SAPV-Leistungsabrechnungen herangezogen. Ergebnisse Von den 95.962 Verstorbenen der Studienpopulation wurden bundesdurchschnittlich 32,7 % palliativ versorgt, mit Schwankungen zwischen 26,4 % in Bremen und 40,8 % in Bayern. AAPV-Leistungen wurden bei 24,4 % abgerechnet (16,9 % in Brandenburg bis 34,1 % in Bayern). SAPV-Leistungen erhielten 13,1 % (6,3 % in Rheinland-Pfalz bis 18,9 % in Brandenburg bzw. 22,9 % in Westfalen-Lippe mit abweichender SAPV-Praxis). Stationär palliativmedizinisch versorgt wurden 8,1 % (6,7 % in Schleswig-Holstein/Hessen bis 13,0 % in Thüringen), Hospizleistungen wurden für 3,3 % abgerechnet (1,6 % in Bremen bis 5,6 % in Berlin). Diskussion SAPV wird häufiger in Anspruch genommen als bisher berichtet, AAPV ist rückläufig. Die jeweilige Inanspruchnahme scheint weniger durch objektiven Bedarf als durch regionalspezifische Rahmenbedingungen begründet. Die Weiterentwicklung der Palliativversorgung sollte zukünftig neben Bedarfskriterien mehr an Outcomes sowie dafür relevanten Rahmenbedingungen orientiert werden.

Background: General Practitioners (GPs) are the main providers of primary palliative care (PPC). At the same time they are the main initiators of specialised palliative homecare (SPHC). In Germany, little is known about factors which influence GPs in their involvement of SPHC. Aim of our study is to identify factors that drive GPs to give value to and involve SPHC. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was performed. In 2018, questionnaires were mailed to 6000 randomly selected GPs from eight German federal states, focusing on the extent of GPs' palliative care activities and their involvement of SPHC. Results: With a response rate of 19.4% and exclusion of GPs working in SPHC-teams, n = 1026 questionnaires were appropriate for analysis. GPs valued SPHC support as the most "important/very important" for both "technical/ invasive treatment measures" (95%) and availability outside practice opening hours (92%). The most relevant factor influencing perceived SPHC-importance was GPs' self-reported extent of engagement in palliative care (β = − 0.283; CI 95% = − 0.384;−0.182), followed by the perceived quality of utilised SPHC (β = 0.119; CI 95% = 0.048;0.190), involvement in treatment of palliative patients after SPHC initiation (β = 0.088; CI 95% = 0.042; 0.134), and conviction that palliative care should be a central part of GPs' work (β = − 0.062; CI 95% = − 0.116; −0.008). Perceived SPHC-importance is also associated with SPHC-referrals (β =0.138; p < 0.001). The lower the engagement of GPs in palliative care, the more they involve SPHC and vice versa. Conclusions: GPs with low reported activity in palliative care are more likely to initialise SPHC for palliative care activities they do not deliver themselves for various reasons, which might mean that the involvement of SPHC is substitutive instead of complementary to primary palliative care. This finding and its interpretation should be given more attention in the future policy framework for (specialised) palliative homecare.

BackgroundSince 2007, the German statutory health insurance covers Specialized Outpatient Palliative Care (SAPV). SAPV offers team-based home care for patients with advanced and progressive disease, complex symptoms and life expectancy limited to days, weeks or months. The introduction of SAPV is ruled by a directive (SAPV directive). Within this regulation, SAPV delivery models can and do differ regarding team structures, financing models, cooperation with other care professionals and processes of care. The research project SAVOIR is funded by G-BA’s German Innovations Fund to evaluate the implementation of the SAPV directive.MethodsThe processes, content and quality of SAPV will be evaluated from the perspectives of patients, SAPV teams, general practitioners and other care givers and payers. The influence of different contracts, team and network structures and regional and geographic settings on processes and results including patient-reported outcomes will be analyzed in five subprojects: [1] structural characteristics of SAPV and their impact on patient care, [2] quality of care from the perspective of patients, [3] quality of care from the perspective of SAPV teams, hospices, ambulatory nursing services, nursing homes and other care givers, content and extent of care from [4] the perspective of General Practitioners and [5] from the perspective of payers.The evaluation will be based on different types of data: team and organizational structures, treatment data based on routine documentation with electronic medical record systems, prospective assessment of patient-reported outcomes in a sample of SAPV teams, qualitative interviews with other stakeholders like nursing and hospice services, a survey in general practitioners and a retrospective analysis of claims data of all SAPV patients, covered by the health insurance fund BARMER in 2016.DiscussionData analysis will allow identification of variables, associated with quality of SAPV. Based on these findings, the SAVOIR study group will develop recommendations for the Federal Joint Committee for a revision of the SAPV directive.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register (DRKS): DRKS00013949 (retrospectively registered, 14.03.2018), DRKS00014726 (14.05.2018), DRKS00014730 (30.05.2018). Subproject 3 is an interview study with professional caregivers and therefore not registered in DRKS as a clinical study.

Background: Comparative effectiveness of different types of palliative homecare is sparsely researched internationally—despite its potential to inform necessary decisions in palliative care infrastructure development. In Germany, specialized palliative homecare delivered by multi-professional teams has increased in recent years and factors beyond medical need seem to drive its involvement and affect the application of primary palliative care, delivered by general practitioners who are supported by nursing services. Aim: To compare effectiveness of primary palliative care and specialized palliative homecare in reducing potentially aggressive interventions at the end-of-life in cancer and non-cancer. Design: Retrospective population-based study with claims data from 95,962 deceased adults in Germany in 2016 using multivariable regression analyses. Settings/participants: Patients having received primary palliative care or specialized palliative homecare (alone or in addition to primary palliative care), for at least 14 days before death, differentiating between cancer and non-cancer patients. Results: Rates of potentially aggressive interventions in most indicators were higher in primary palliative care than in specialized palliative homecare ( p < 0.01), in both cancer and non-cancer patients: death in hospital (odds ratio (OR) 4.541), hospital care (OR 2.720), intensive care treatment (OR 6.749), chemotherapy (OR 2.173), and application of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (OR 4.476), but not for parenteral nutrition (OR 0.477). Conclusion: Specialized palliative homecare is more strongly associated with reduction of potentially aggressive interventions than primary palliative care in the last days of life. Future research should identify elements of specialized palliative homecare applicable for more effective primary palliative care, too. German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00014730).

An 88-year-old woman presented to us with angiosarcoma of the scalp that had developed over a 6-month period following previous trauma. Despite explicit information concerning the extremely malignant potential of the tumour the patient refused any surgical intervention. However, she agreed to receive local, intralesional interferon alpha-2b and interleukin-2 therapy. After partial remission of the tumour, the intralesional cytokine injections were combined with surface radiotherapy. This combination therapy led to a 2-year remission of both the tumour and sonographically suspicious cervical lymph nodes. Apart from the typical, moderate side-effects of interferon alpha-2b and interleukin-2 the therapy was well tolerated. In conclusion, in our limited experience intralesional cytokine therapy--alone as well as in combination with surface irradiation--seems to be an alternative therapeutic option for patients who is not a candidate for surgery.

US-FNAC is highly accurate and eliminates the need for SLNB in 16% of all SLNB patients. RT-PCR of the aspirate or excised SN does not improve sensitivity or specificity. RT-PCR of blood samples predicts DFS and OS.

No abstract

We report on two patients with granulomatous rosacea and another patient with granulomatous perioral dermatitis who responded well to dapsone. Dapsone has a pharmacological double function as both an antibiotic and an antiphlogistic drug. Before the introduction of isotretinoin, dapsone had its place in the treatment of severe acne. To date, its use in granulomatous rosacea has not been described. When hematologic parameters are monitored, dapsone is considered a safe and cost-effective drug, especially in countries where isotretinoin is not readily available. However, the definite value of dapsone in granulomatous rosacea should be established by a controlled study.