Implementation of a Global Treatment Budget in Psychiatric Departments in Germany—Results and Critical Factors for Success From the Staff Perspective

Abstract

Background Despite evidence from other countries for its effectiveness, flexible and integrative psychiatric treatment (FIT) is not part of the German standard healthcare system. Since 2013, German legislative reform has enabled a test implementation of FIT based on a global treatment budget. Because the budget is not restricted to any particular activity, this legislation opens the possibility of enhancing linkages between inpatient-, outpatient- and day-patient treatment structures. As staff involvement is a relevant component in successful implementation, we aimed in this study to judge the degree of FIT implementation based on staff members’ experiences and evaluations of FIT. Method Within an exploratory study design, we administered a standardized written survey to rate experiences and evaluations of physicians, psychologists, and nurses in the first 13 FIT projects between October 2016 and February 2017. The sample consisted of 352 nurses, 127 physicians, 84 psychologists, and 132 special therapists. We identified critical factors for successful implementation from the staff perspective by logistic regression analysis. Results Staff evaluations of the degree of FIT implementation were generally favorable, although some staff reported no experiences with one or several FIT-specific components. We found considerable differences in the assessments between the occupational groups. The only common factor for successful FIT implementation shared by physicians, psychologists, and nurses was the opportunity to join training programs on the objectives of FIT. Other critical factors for successful implementation were work conditions, the number of nurses/special therapists per physician/psychologist, and project duration. These factors together explained 49% of the variance of physician/psychologist evaluations and 34% for nurse evaluations. Individual staff members’ characteristics were less important than structural- or FIT characteristics as explanatory factors for the degree of FIT implementation. Implications Results point to the importance of new forms of multi-professional cooperation, training programs, improvement of work conditions, and guidance of the implementation process by systematic Change Management for future implementations of FIT. Our exploratory findings require further validation to guide practical improvements in FIT implementation. Longitudinal observations and a multilevel analysis should yield a better understanding of the relevant variables from different organization levels and their possible interactions.

Vom Modell zur Regionalen Regelversorgung

“…Diese Begleitforschung wurde durch die Krankenkassen mit zusätzlich 1 % des Budgets finanziert. Seit 2016 nimmt das Zentrum für Psychosoziale Medizin gemeinsam mit anderen Kliniken in Deutschland an verschiedenen Projekten der wissenschaftlichen Begleitforschung mit Erfolg teil (Eva64, EvaMod64, PsychCare) [12][13][14].…”

Changes in patient care through flexible and integrated treatment programs in German psychiatric hospitals: meta-analyses based on a series of controlled claims-based cohort studies

“…Evidence on GTB and previous aligned concepts showed advantages of the new care concepts compared to usual care, e.g. regarding shorter duration of inpatient days [17,[28][29][30], patient-centered outcomes [31], conditions for successful GTB implementation [32], and identified core mechanisms of change in FIT hospitals [23].…”

Lengths of inpatient stay and sick leave of patients with mental diseases: disorder-specific effects of flexible and integrated treatment programs in Germany

“…Such forms of treatment may include e.g., Assertive Community Treatment, Home-Treatment [ 21 , 22 ], Crisis Resolution Teams [ 23 ], or a stronger focus on day-care treatment focussing on more need-adapted, cross-sectoral service [ 24 ]. FIT hospitals are enabled to configure models of care that suit the regional peculiarities and meet the needs of community members [ 25 ] and, therefore, tend to differ tremendously in terms of starting conditions as well as treatment and process structures (for more information please see e.g., [ 21 , 24 , 26 – 29 ]. Additionally, FIT programs may also vary on the degree of FIT implementation [ 24 ] as well as between adult psychiatry and children and adolescent psychiatry.…”