Dataset Information

Public release of hospital quality data for referral practices in Germany: results from a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: To evaluate the impact of different dissemination channels on the awareness and usage of hospital performance reports among referring physicians, as well as the usefulness of such reports from the referring physicians' perspective.Primary data collected from a survey with 277 referring physicians (response rate = 26.2%) in Nuremberg, Germany (03-06/2016).Cluster-randomised controlled trial at the practice level. Physician practices were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: (1) physicians in the control arm could become aware of the performance reports via mass media channels (Mass Media, [Formula: see text]=132, [Formula: see text]=147); (2) physicians in the intervention arm also received a printed version of the report via mail (Mass and Special Media, [Formula: see text]=117; [Formula: see text]=130).Overall, 68% of respondents recalled hospital performance reports and 21% used them for referral decisions. Physicians from the Mass and Special Media group were more likely to be aware of the performance reports (OR 4.16; 95% CI 2.16-8.00, p < .001) but not more likely to be influenced when referring patients into hospitals (OR 1.73; 95% CI 0.72-4.12, p > .05). On a 1 (very good) to 6 (insufficient) scale, the usefulness of the performance reports was rated 3.67 (±1.40). Aggregated presentation formats were rated more helpful than detailed hospital quality information.Hospital quality reports have limited impact on referral practices. To increase the latter, concerns raised by referring physicians must be given more weight. Those principally refer to the underlying data, the design of the reports, and the lack of important information.

SUBMITTER: Emmert M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5615085 | biostudies-other | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Public release of hospital quality data for referral practices in Germany: results from a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

Emmert Martin M Meszmer Nina N Jablonski Lisa L Zinth Lena L Schöffski Oliver O Taheri-Zadeh Fatemeh F

Health economics review 20170926 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the impact of different dissemination channels on the awareness and usage of hospital performance reports among referring physicians, as well as the usefulness of such reports from the referring physicians' perspective.<h4>Data sources/study setting</h4>Primary data collected from a survey with 277 referring physicians (response rate = 26.2%) in Nuremberg, Germany (03-06/2016).<h4>Study design</h4>Cluster-randomised controlled trial at the practice level. Physician ...[more]

PMID: 28952136

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLynch syndrome (LS) is an inherited, cancer predisposition syndrome associated with an increased risk of colorectal, endometrial and other cancer types. Identifying individuals with LS allows access to cancer risk management strategies proven to reduce cancer incidence and improve survival. However, LS is underdiagnosed and genetic referral rates are poor. Improving LS referral is complex, and requires multisystem behaviour change. Although barriers have been identified, evidence-based strategies to facilitate behaviour change are lacking. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of a theory-based implementation approach against a non-theory based approach for improving detection of LS amongst Australian patients with colorectal cancer (CRC).MethodsA two-arm parallel cluster randomised trial design will be used to compare two identical, structured implementation approaches, distinguished only by the use of theory to identify barriers and design targeted intervention strategies, to improve LS referral practices in eight large Australian hospital networks. Each hospital network will be randomly allocated to a trial arm, with stratification by state. A trained healthcare professional will lead the following phases at each site: (1) undertake baseline clinical practice audits, (2) form multidisciplinary Implementation Teams, (3) identify target behaviours for practice change, (4) identify barriers to change, (5) generate intervention strategies, (6) support staff to implement interventions and (7) evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention using post-implementation clinical data. The theoretical and non-theoretical components of each trial arm will be distinguished in phases 4-5. Study outcomes include a LS referral process map for each hospital network, with evaluation of the proportion of patients with risk-appropriate completion of the LS referral pathway within 2?months of CRC resection pre and post implementation.DiscussionThis trial will determine the more effective approach for improving the detection of LS amongst patients with CRC, whilst also advancing understanding of the impact of theory-based implementation approaches in complex health systems and the feasibility of training healthcare professionals to use them. Insights gained will guide the development of future interventions to improve LS identification on a larger scale and across different contexts, as well as efforts to address the gap between evidence and practice in the rapidly evolving field of genomic research.Trial registrationANZCTR, ACTRN12618001072202 . Registered on 27 June 2018.

Project description:BackgroundWhile effective physical activity referral schemes (PARSs) and related structures for promoting physical activity (PA) already exist in several countries, in Germany, PARSs have not yet been implemented systematically and nationwide. Through a co-production approach with relevant actors in the German healthcare system, a PARS was developed, and an implementation plan was created (e.g. financing). This study protocol aims to evaluate the developed PARS for people with non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in Germany regarding its potential effectiveness and implementation success.MethodsTo evaluate the effectiveness and implementation success of the PARS, we will apply a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial (cRCT) in Hybrid II design by comparing two intervention groups (PARS vs PA advice [PAA]). The trial will take place in the Nürnberg metropolitan region, with 24 physician practices recruiting 567 people with NCDs. Both groups will receive brief PA advice from a physician to initially increase the participants' motivation to change their activity level. Subsequently, the PARS group will be given individualised support from an exercise professional to increase their PA levels and be transferred to local exercise opportunities. In contrast, participants in the PAA group will receive only the brief PA advice as well as information and an overview of regional PA offerings to become more active at their own initiative. After 12 and 24 weeks, changes in moderate to vigorous PA and in physical activity-related health competence (movement competence, control competence, self-regulation competence) will be measured as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes will include changes in quality of life. To measure implementation success, we refer to the RE-AIM framework and draw on patient documentation, interviews, focus groups and surveys of the participating actors (physicians, exercise professionals).DiscussionThrough a between-group comparison, we will investigate whether additional individual support by an exercise professional compared to brief PA advice alone leads to higher PA levels in people with NCDs. The acceptance and feasibility of both interventions in routine care in the German healthcare system will also be evaluated.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04947787 . Registered 01 June 2021.

Project description:BackgroundEarly interventions proved to be able to improve prognosis in acute stroke patients. Prompt identification of symptoms, organised timely and efficient transportation towards appropriate facilities, become essential part of effective treatment. The implementation of an evidence based pre-hospital stroke care pathway may be a method for achieving the organizational standards required to grant appropriate care. We performed a systematic search for studies evaluating the effect of pre-hospital and emergency interventions for suspected stroke patients and we found that there seems to be only a few studies on the emergency field and none about implementation of clinical pathways. We will test the hypothesis that the adoption of emergency clinical pathway improves early diagnosis and referral in suspected stroke patients. We designed a cluster randomised controlled trial (C-RCT), the most powerful study design to assess the impact of complex interventions. The study was registered in the Current Controlled Trials Register: ISRCTN41456865--implementation of pre-hospital emergency pathway for stroke--a cluster randomised trial.Methods/designTwo-arm cluster-randomised trial (C-RCT). 16 emergency services and 14 emergency rooms were randomised either to arm 1 (comprising a training module and administration of the guideline), or to arm 2 (no intervention, current practice). Arm 1 participants (152 physicians, 280 nurses, 50 drivers) attended an interactive two sessions course with continuous medical education CME credits on the contents of the clinical pathway. We estimated that around 750 patients will be met by the services in the 6 months of observation. This duration allows recruiting a sample of patients sufficient to observe a 30% improvement in the proportion of appropriate diagnoses. Data collection will be performed using current information systems. Process outcomes will be measured at the cluster level six months after the intervention. We will assess the guideline recommendations for emergency and pre-hospital stroke management relative to: 1) promptness of interventions for hyperacute ischaemic stroke; 2) promptness of interventions for hyperacute haemorrhagic stroke 3) appropriate diagnosis. Outcomes will be expressed as proportions of patients with a positive CT for ischaemic stroke and symptoms onset < or = 6 hour admitted to the stroke unit.DiscussionThe fields in which this trial will play are usually neglected by randomised controlled trial (RCT). We have chosen the cluster-randomised controlled trial (C-RCT) to address the issues of contamination, adherence to real practice, and community dimension of the intervention, with a complex definition of clusters and an extensive use of routine data to collect the outcomes.

Project description:ImportanceStudies in high-income countries provide limited evidence from randomized clinical trials on the benefits of teleretinal screening to identify diabetic retinopathy (DR).ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of teleretinal-screening hospital referral (TR) compared with universal hospital referral (UR) in people with diabetes.Design, setting, and participantsA cluster randomized clinical trial of 8 diabetes clinics within 10 km from Aravind Eye Hospital (AEH), Madurai, India, was conducted. Participants included 801 patients older than 50 years. The study was conducted from May 21, 2014, to February 7, 2015; data analysis was performed from March 12 to June 16, 2015.InterventionsIn the TR cohort, nonmydriatic, 3-field, 45° retinal images were remotely graded by a retinal specialist and patients with DR, probable DR, or ungradable images were referred to AEH for a retinal examination. In the UR cohort, all patients were referred for a retinal examination at AEH.Main outcomes and measuresHospital-diagnosed DR.ResultsOf the 801 participants, 401 were women (50.1%) (mean [SD] age, 60.0 [7.3] years); mean diabetes duration was 8.6 (6.6) years. In the TR cohort, 96 of 398 patients (24.1%) who underwent teleretinal imaging were referred with probable DR (53 [13.3%]) or nongradable images (43 [10.8%]). Hospital attendance at AEH was proportionately higher with TR (54 of 96 referred [56.3%]) compared with UR (150 of 400 referred [37.5%]). The intention-to-treat analysis based on all patients eligible for referral in each arm showed that proportionately more patients with TR (36 of 96 [37.5]%) were diagnosed with DR compared with UR (50 of 400 [12.5%]) (unadjusted risk ratio [RR], 3.00; 95% CI, 2.01-4.48). These results were little changed by inclusion of covariates (RR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.90-3.91). The RR was lower in the per-protocol analysis based on all patients who adhered to referral (covariate-adjusted RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.12-2.74). Diagnoses of DR were predominantly mild or moderate nonproliferative DR (36 in TR and 43 in UR). In the UR arm, there were 4 cases of severe nonproliferative DR and 2 cases of proliferative DR. Age (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99), female sex (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.98), and hypertension diagnosis (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68-0.95) were factors associated with lower attendance. Those with higher secondary educational level or more were twice as likely to attend (RR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.32-3.03).Conclusions and relevanceThe proportionate yield of DR cases was higher in the TR arm, confirming the potential benefit, at least in the setting of eye hospitals in India, of a targeted referral approach using teleretinal screening to identify patients with DR.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02085681.

Project description:BackgroundFew patients with lower bowel symptoms who consult their general practitioner need a specialist opinion. However data from referred patients suggest that those who are referred would benefit from detailed assessment before referral.MethodsA cluster randomised factorial trial. 44 general practices in North Trent, UK. Practices were offered either an electronic interactive referral pro forma, an educational outreach visit by a local colorectal surgeon, both or neither. The main outcome measure was the proportion of cases with severe diverticular disease, cancer or precancerous lesions and inflammatory bowel disease in those referred by each group. A secondary outcome was a referral letter quality score. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to identify key themes relating to the use of the softwareResultsFrom 150 invitations, 44 practices were recruited with a total list size of 265,707. There were 716 consecutive referrals recorded over a six-month period, for which a diagnosis was available for 514. In the combined software arms 14% (37/261) had significant pathology, compared with 19% (49/253) in the non-software arms, relative risk 0.73 (95% CI: 0.46 to 1.15). In the combined educational outreach arms 15% (38/258) had significant pathology compared with 19% (48/256) in the non-educational arms, relative risk 0.79 (95% CI: 0.50 to 1.24). Pro forma practices documented better assessment of patients at referral.ConclusionThere was a lack of evidence that either intervention increased the proportion of patients with organic pathology among those referred. The interactive software did improve the amount of information relayed in referral letters although we were unable to confirm if this made a significant difference to patients or their health care providers. The potential value of either intervention may have been diminished by their limited uptake within the context of a cluster randomised clinical trial. A number of lessons were learned in this trial of novel innovations.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious controlled studies on the effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) - namely the use of facemasks and intensified hand hygiene - in preventing household transmission of influenza have not produced definitive results. We aimed to investigate efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of NPI in households with influenza index patients.MethodsWe conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial during the pandemic season 2009/10 and the ensuing influenza season 2010/11. We included households with an influenza positive index case in the absence of further respiratory illness within the preceding 14 days. Study arms were wearing a facemask and practicing intensified hand hygiene (MH group), wearing facemasks only (M group) and none of the two (control group). Main outcome measure was laboratory confirmed influenza infection in a household contact. We used daily questionnaires to examine adherence and tolerability of the interventions.ResultsWe recruited 84 households (30 control, 26 M and 28 MH households) with 82, 69 and 67 household contacts, respectively. In 2009/10 all 41 index cases had a influenza A (H1N1) pdm09 infection, in 2010/11 24 had an A (H1N1) pdm09 and 20 had a B infection. The total secondary attack rate was 16% (35/218). In intention-to-treat analysis there was no statistically significant effect of the M and MH interventions on secondary infections. When analysing only households where intervention was implemented within 36 h after symptom onset of the index case, secondary infection in the pooled M and MH groups was significantly lower compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio 0.16, 95% CI, 0.03-0.92). In a per-protocol analysis odds ratios were significantly reduced among participants of the M group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.30, 95% CI, 0.10-0.94). With the exception of MH index cases in 2010/11 adherence was good for adults and children, contacts and index cases.ConclusionsResults suggest that household transmission of influenza can be reduced by the use of NPI, such as facemasks and intensified hand hygiene, when implemented early and used diligently. Concerns about acceptability and tolerability of the interventions should not be a reason against their recommendation.Trial registrationThe study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier NCT00833885).

Dataset Information

Public release of hospital quality data for referral practices in Germany: results from a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

Publications

Public release of hospital quality data for referral practices in Germany: results from a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets