Browsing by Author "Beyer, Martin"

Objectives To compare opioid prescription rates between patients enrolled in coordinated ambulatory care and patients receiving usual care. Design In this retrospective cohort study, we analysed claims data for insured patients with non-specific/specific back pain or osteoarthritis of hip or knee from 2014 to 2017. Setting The study was based on administrative data provided by the statutory health insurance fund ‘Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse’, in the state of Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany. Participants The intervention group consisted of patients enrolled in a coordinated ambulatory healthcare model; the control group included patients receiving usual care. Outcomes were overall strong and weak opioid prescriptions. Generalised linear regression models were used to analyse the effect of the intervention. Results Overall, 46 001 (non-specific 18 787/specific 27 214) patients with back pain and 19 366 patients with osteoarthritis belonged to the intervention group, and 7038 (2803/4235) and 963 patients to the control group, respectively. No significant difference in opioid prescriptions existed between the groups. However, the chance of being prescribed strong opioids was significantly lower in the intervention group (non-specific back pain: Odds Ratio (OR) 0.735, 95% Confidential Interval (CI) 0.563 to 0.960; specific back pain: OR 0.702, 95% CI 0.577 to 0.852; osteoarthritis: OR 0.644, 95% CI 0.464 to 0.892). The chance of being prescribed weak opioids was significantly higher in patients with specific back pain (OR 1.243, 95% CI 1.032 to 1.497) and osteoarthritis (OR 1.493, 95% CI 1.037 to 2.149) in the intervention group. Conclusion Coordinated ambulatory healthcare appears to be associated with a lower prescription rate for strong opioids in patients with chronic musculoskeletal disorders. Trial registration number German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00017548).

Abstract Background In 2014, the novel orthopedic care program was established by the AOK health insurance fund in southern Germany to improve ambulatory care for patients with musculoskeletal disorders. The program offers extended consultation times, structured collaboration between general practitioners and specialists, as well as a renewed focus on guideline-recommended therapies and patient empowerment. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the program on health service utilization in patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods This retrospective cohort study, which is based on claims data, evaluated health service utilization in patients with hip and knee OA from 2014 to 2017. The intervention group comprised OA patients enrolled in collaborative ambulatory orthopedic care, and the control group received usual care. The outcomes were participation in exercise interventions, prescription of physical therapy, OA-related hospitalization, and endoprosthetic surgery rates. Generalized linear regression models were used to analyze the effect of the intervention. Results Claims data for 24,170 patients were analyzed. Data for the 23,042 patients in the intervention group were compared with data for the 1,128 patients in the control group. Participation in exercise interventions (Odds Ratio (OR): 1.781; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.230–2.577; p  = 0.0022), and overall prescriptions of physical therapy (Rate Ratio (RR): 1.126; 95% CI: 1.025–1.236; p  = 0.0128) were significantly higher in the intervention group. The intervention group had a significantly lower risk of OA -related hospitalization (OR: 0.375; 95% CI: 0.290–0.485; p  < 0.0001). Endoprosthetic surgery of the knee was performed in 53.8% of hospitalized patients in the intervention group vs. 57.5% in the control group; 27.7% of hospitalized patients underwent endoprosthetic surgery of the hip in the intervention group versus 37.0% in the control group. Conclusions In patients with hip and knee OA, collaborative ambulatory orthopedic care is associated with a lower risk of OA-related hospitalization, higher participation in exercise interventions, and more frequently prescribed physical therapy.

Abstract Since 2010, an intensified ambulatory cardiology care programme has been implemented in southern Germany. To improve patient management, the structure of cardiac disease management was improved, guideline-recommended care was supported, new ambulatory medical services and a morbidity-adapted reimbursement system were set up. Our aim was to determine the effects of this programme on the mortality and hospitalisation of enrolled patients with cardiac disorders. We conducted a comparative observational study in 2015 and 2016, based on insurance claims data. Overall, 13,404 enrolled patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) and 19,537 with coronary artery disease (CAD) were compared, respectively, to 8,776 and 16,696 patients that were receiving usual ambulatory cardiology care. Compared to the control group, patients enrolled in the programme had lower mortality (Hazard Ratio: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.77–0.91) and fewer all-cause hospitalisations (Rate Ratio: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.90–0.97). CHF-related hospitalisations in patients with CHF were also reduced (Rate Ratio: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.69–0.84). CAD patients showed a similar reduction in mortality rates (Hazard Ratio: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.76–0.88) and all-cause hospitalisation (Rate Ratio: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.91–0.97), but there was no effect on CAD-related hospitalisation. We conclude that intensified ambulatory care reduced mortality and hospitalisation in cardiology patients.

At the WONCA Europe conference 2009 the recently published 'Research Agenda for General Practice/Family Medicine and Primary Health Care in Europe' was presented. It is a background paper and reference manual, providing advocacy of general practice/family medicine (GP/FM) in Europe. The Research Agenda summarizes the evidence relating to the core competencies and characteristics of the WONCA Europe definition of GP/FM, and its implications for general practitioners/family doctors, researchers and policy makers. The European Journal of General Practice publishes a series of articles based on this document. In a first article, background, objectives, and methodology were discussed. In this second article, the results for the core competencies 'primary care management' and 'community orientation' are presented. Though there is a large body of research on various aspects of 'primary care management', it represents a very scattered rather than a meta view. Many studies focus on care for specific diseases, the primary/secondary care interface, or the implications of electronic patient records. Cost efficiency or process indicators of quality are current outcomes. Current literature on community orientation is mainly descriptive, and focuses on either care for specific diseases, or specific patient populations, or on the uptake of preventive services. Most papers correspond poorly to the WONCA concept. For both core competencies, there is a lack of research with a longitudinal perspective and/or relevant health or quality of life outcomes as well as research on patients' preferences and education for organizational aspects of GP/FM.

The 'Research Agenda for General Practice/Family Medicine and Primary Health Care in Europe' summarizes the evidence relating to the core competencies and characteristics of the Wonca Europe definition of GP/FM, and its implications for general practitioners/family doctors, researchers and policy makers. The European Journal of General Practice publishes a series of articles based on this document. The previous articles presented background, objectives, and methodology, as well results on 'primary care management' and 'community orientation' and the person-related core competencies of GP/FM. This article reflects on the general practitioner's 'specific problem solving skills'. These include decision making on diagnosis and therapy of specific diseases, accounting for the properties of primary care, but also research questions related to quality management and resource use, shared decision making, or professional education and development. Clinical research covers most specific diseases, but often lacks pragmatism and primary care relevance. Quality management is a stronghold of GP/FM research. Educational interventions can be effective when well designed for a specific setting and situation. However, their message that 'usual care' by general practitioners is insufficient may be problematic. GP and their patients need more research into diagnostic reasoning with a step-wise approach to increase predictive values in a setting characterized by uncertainty and low prevalence of specific diseases. Pragmatic comparative effectiveness studies of new and established drugs or non-pharmaceutical therapy are needed. Multi-morbidity and complexity should be addressed. Studies on therapy, communication strategies and educational interventions should consider impact on health and sustainability of effects.

The recently published 'Research Agenda for General Practice/Family Medicine and Primary Health Care in Europe' summarizes the evidence relating to the core competencies and characteristics of the Wonca Europe definition of GP/FM, and highlights related needs and implications for future research and policy. The European Journal of General Practice publishes a series of articles based on this document. In a first article, background, objectives, and methodology were discussed. In three subsequent, articles the results for the six core competencies of the European Definition of GP/FM were presented. This article formulates the common aims for further research and appropriate research methodologies, based on the missing evidence and research gaps identified form the comprehensive literature review. In addition, implications of this research agenda for general practitioners/family doctors, researchers, research organizations, patients and policy makers are presented. The concept of six core competencies should be abandoned in favour of a model with four dimensions, including clinical, person related, community oriented and management aspects. Future research and policy should consider more the involvement and rights of patients; more attention should be given to how new treatments or technologies are effectively translated into routine patient care, in particular primary care. There is a need for a European ethics board. The promotion of GP/FM research demands a good infrastructure in each country, including access to literature and databases, appropriate funding and training possibilities.

The Research Agenda should be used as a key reference point to which new research should relate its usefulness and added value. Primary care evolves towards more interdisciplinary care, and research should focus more on the core competency of person-centred team care. There is an urgent need to develop clear definitions and appropriate research instruments for this domain. It will be a particular challenge to study comprehensive approaches in primary-care patients with multi-morbidity. The Research Agenda and the commentaries on it show future directions for primary care research. There are challenges related to a changing society, the shared responsibility and guidance of research by professionals and citizens (patients), and the need to fully integrate research as part of primary healthcare provision. There will be a need for a prioritization of spearheads to guide primary care research for the next decade: translational research, research on equity and health differences, on chronic disease and health systems research. This can not be realized without the development and maintenance of a solid research infrastructure: easily maintained and accessed observational databases, helpful information technology, strategies and techniques for patient involvement, advanced research training possibilities, and the development and validation of appropriate research instruments and outcome measures to capture the different challenges. Worldwide, primary care not only is a priority for health care policy, but it needs to become a research priority as well.

At the WONCA Europe conference 2009 the recently published 'Research Agenda for General Practice/Family Medicine and Primary Health Care in Europe' was presented. The Research Agenda is a background paper and reference manual for GPs/ family doctors, researchers and policy makers, providing advocacy of general practice/family medicine GP/FM in Europe. The Research Agenda summarizes the evidence relating to the core competencies and characteristics of the WONCA Europe definition of GP/FM, and its meaning for researchers and policy makers. Evidence gaps and research needs are pointed out to provide a basis for planning research for which there is a need and for action that may influence health and research policy, i.e. applying/lobbying for research funds. WONCA Europe and its associated networks and special interest groups could consider the agenda's research priorities when planning future conferences, courses, or projects, and for funding purposes. The European Journal of General Practice will publish a series of articles based on this document. In this first article, background, objectives, methodology and relevant literature are discussed. In subsequent articles, the results will be presented.

The recently published 'Research Agenda for General Practice/Family Medicine and Primary Health Care in Europe' summarizes the evidence relating to the core competencies and characteristics of the Wonca Europe definition of GP/FM, and its implications for general practitioners/family doctors, researchers and policy makers. The European Journal of General Practice publishes a series of articles based on this document. In a first article, background, objectives, and methodology were discussed. In a second article, the results for the two core competencies 'primary care management' and 'community orientation' were presented. This article reflects on the three core competencies, which deal with person related aspects of GP/FM, i.e. 'person centred care', 'comprehensive approach' and 'holistic approach'. Though there is an important body of opinion papers and (non-systematic) reviews, all person related aspects remain poorly defined and researched. Validated instruments to measure these competencies are lacking. Concerning patient-centredness, most research examined patient and doctor preferences and experiences. Studies on comprehensiveness mostly focus on prevention/care of specific diseases. For all domains, there has been limited research conducted on its implications or outcomes.