Dataset Information

Improving the continuity and coordination of ambulatory care through feedback and facilitated dialogue-a study protocol for a cluster-randomised trial to evaluate the ACD study (Accountable Care in Germany).

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patients in Germany are free to seek care from any office-based physician and can always ask for multiple opinions on a diagnosis or treatment. The high density of physicians and the freedom to choose among them without referrals have led to a need for better coordination between the multiple health professionals treating any given patient. The objectives of this study are to (1) identify informal networks of physicians who treat the same patient population, (2) provide these physicians with feedback on their network and patients, using routine data and (3) give the physicians the opportunity to meet one another in facilitated network meetings.

Methods

The Accountable Care Deutschland (ACD) study is a prospective, non-blinded, cluster-randomised trial comprising a process and economic evaluation of informal networks among 12,525 GPs and office-based specialists and their 1.9 million patients. The units of allocation are the informal networks, which will be randomised either to the intervention (feedback and facilitated meetings) or control group (usual care). The informal networks will be generated by identifying connections between office-based physicians using complete datasets from the Regional Associations of Statutory Health Insurance (SHI) Physicians in Hamburg, Schleswig Holstein, North Rhine and Westphalia Lip, as well as data from three large statutory health insurers in Germany. The physicians will (a) receive feedback on selected indicators of their own treatment activity and that of the colleagues in their network and (b) will be invited to voluntary, facilitated network meetings by their Regional Association of SHI physicians. The primary outcome will be ambulatory-care-sensitive hospitalisations at baseline, at the end of the 2-year intervention period, and at six months and at 12 months after the end of the intervention period. Data will be analysed using the intention-to-treat principle. A pilot study preceded the ACD study.

Discussion

Cochrane reviews show that feedback can improve everyday medical practice by shedding light on previously unknown relationships. Providing physicians with information on how they are connected with their colleagues and what the outcomes are of care delivered within their informal networks can help them make these improvements, as well as strengthen their awareness of possible discontinuities in the care they provide.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00020884 . Registered on 25 March 2020-retrospectively registered.

SUBMITTER: Sundmacher L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8441947 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn 2009 health insurers AOK and Bosch BKK introduced the "FacharztProgramm Kardiologie" - a program for coordinated ambulatory cardiology care in the German state of Baden-Württemberg. It aims for efficient, medical guideline-oriented cardiology care to reduce avoidable hospitalizations as well as costs of care. A high number of cardiologists participate and the program has served as blueprint for programs in other medical fields. With many prerequisites and conditions involved, its implementation cannot be expected to be self-directed. Still, only little data on the actual implementation exists. We aimed to determine to what extent medical specialists and cooperating general practitioners implemented the program, which components they adapted, and which contextual factors they deemed relevant.MethodsWe collected data from primary care practices of medical specialists and general practitioners within Baden-Württemberg. Qualitative data was obtained through structured telephone interviews with participating and non-participating medical specialists as well as general practitioners cooperating with the program and general practitioners not cooperating. Interviews were analyzed through content-structuring qualitative content analyses via MAXQDA. Quantitative data was obtained using anonymous written questionnaires completed by participating and non-participating medical specialists as well as general practitioners cooperating with the program. Analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics, mainly with regard to differences within and between groups of physicians.ResultsMost components of the program regarding medical care were well implemented. However, access to medical care was not completely as intended due to high numbers of patients participating in the program and prioritization by physicians. Procedures for communication and cooperation between medical specialists and general practitioners were only partially adhered to and standardized communication was not implemented. A range of regional and practice-related contextual factors influenced implementation and outcomes.ConclusionsImplementation of this program was mixed. Contextual factors posed individual challenges to participating physicians which can't be captured by an encompassing program. Both control mechanisms and tailoring of the program to medical care seem needed.Trial registrationThough not a clinical study, we deemed registration appropriate to ensure transparency. The study has been registered as a non-interventional observation study at the German Clinical Trials Register under ID: DRKS00013070.

Project description:PurposeThe Open Dialogue (OD) approach has been implemented in different countries worldwide. OD not only depends on therapeutic principles but also requires a distinct set of structural changes that may impede its full implementation. In Germany, OD is currently practiced in different mental health care settings across the country. Yet, full implementation of OD principles is limited due to the extreme structural and financial fragmentation of the German mental health care system. With this as a background, the aim of this study was to investigate the efforts, challenges and obstacles of OD implementation in Germany.MethodsThis article presents the German results from the international HOPEnDIALOGUE survey, supplemented with expert interview data. Thirty eight teams currently providing OD took part in the survey. Sixteen expert interviews were carried out with stakeholders from various care settings. Survey data were analyzed descriptively and the qualitative data were evaluated using a thematic analysis approach.ResultsWhile having to adapt to the fragmented German health care system, OD has been mainly implemented from outpatient service providers and stand-alone services. About half of the teams implemented OD under the conditions of cross-sectoral model contracts and, thus, are considerably limited when it comes to OD implementation. Altogether, OD is not implemented to its full extent in each of the institutions surveyed. Similarly, the expert interviews revealed various challenges that mainly relate to the realization of OD's structural principles, whereas the implementation of its therapeutic benefits remains less affected. However, these challenges have managed to lead to great commitment by single teams and a certain level of implementation of OD-related concepts.ConclusionOD in Germany can currently only be fully implemented under the cross-sectoral care model contract system that is often temporary, thus significantly hindering its continuous development. Any evaluation of OD's effectiveness in Germany thus needs to take into account the fragmented nature of the country's health care system and control for the multiple barriers that impede implementation. Reforms of the German health care system are also urgently needed to create more favorable conditions for the implementation of OD.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Coordination of care is considered a key component of patient-centered health care systems, but is rarely defined or operationalised in health care policy. Continuity, an aspect of coordination, is the patient's experience of care over time, and is often described in terms of three dimensions: information, relational and management continuity. With the current health policy focus on both the use of information technology and care coordination, this study aimed to 1) explore how information continuity supports coordination and 2) investigate conditions required to support information continuity. METHODS: Four diverse Australian primary health care initiatives were purposively selected for inclusion in the study. Each has improved coordination as an aim or fundamental principle. Each organization was asked to identify practitioners, managers and decision makers who could provide insight into the use of information for care coordination to participate in the study. Using in-depth semi-structured interviews, we explored four questions covering the scope and use of information, the influence of governance, data ownership and confidentiality and the influence of financial incentives and quality improvement on information continuity and coordination. Data were thematically analyzed using NVivo 8. RESULTS: The overall picture that emerged across all four cases was that whilst accessibility and continuity of information underpin effective care, they are not sufficient for coordination of care for complex conditions. Shared information reduced unnecessary repetition and provided health professionals with the opportunity to access records of care from other providers, but participants described their role in coordination in terms of the active involvement of a person in care rather than the passive availability of information. Complex issues regarding data ownership and confidentiality often hampered information sharing. Successful coordination in each case was associated with responsiveness to local rather than system level factors. CONCLUSIONS: The availability of information is not sufficient to ensure continuity for the patient or coordination from the systems perspective. Policy directed at information continuity must give consideration to the broader 'fit' with management and relational continuity and provide a broad base that allows for local responsiveness in order for coordination of care to be achieved.

Project description:Introduction and backgroundAs cancer is developing into a chronic disease due to longer survival, continuity and coordination of oncological care are becoming more important for patients. As radiation oncology departments are an integral part of cancer care and as repeat irradiation becomes more commonplace, the relevance of continuity and coordination of care in operating procedures is increasing. This study aims to perform a single-institution analysis of cancer patients in which continuity and coordination of care matters most, namely the highly selected group with multiple repeat course radiotherapy throughout their chronic disease.Materials and methodsAll patients who received at least five courses of radiotherapy at the Department of Radiation Oncology at the University Hospital Zurich from 2011 to 2019 and who were alive at the time of the initiation of this project were included into this study. Patient and treatment characteristics were extracted from the hospital information and treatment planning systems. All patients completed two questionnaires on continuity of care, one of which was designed in-house and one of which was taken from the literature.ResultsOf the 33 patients identified at baseline, 20 (60.6%) participated in this study. A median of 6 years (range 3-13) elapsed between the first and the last visit at the cancer center. The median number of involved primary oncologists at the radiation oncology department was two (range 1-5). Fifty-seven percent of radiation therapy courses were preceded by a tumor board discussion. Both questionnaires showed high levels of experienced continuity of care. No statistically significant differences in experienced continuity of care between groups with more or less than two primary oncologists was found.Discussion and conclusionPatients treated with multiple repeat radiation therapy at our department over the past decade experienced high levels of continuity of care, yet further efforts should be undertaken to coordinate care among oncological disciplines in large cancer centers through better and increased use of interdisciplinary tumor boards.