Primary dementia care based on the individual needs of the patient: study protocol of the cluster randomized controlled trial, DemStepCare

[DemStepCare: Risk-stratified support for primary care-based dementia care - evaluation from general practitioner's view]

OBJECTIVE

The innovation fund project DemStepCare aimed to optimize multi-professional care through case management, risk stratification, and crisis outpatient clinic. Here, the evaluation results from the perspective of the general practitioners are presented.

METHODS

A quantitative survey was carried out at three time points regarding acceptance, benefit assessment and sensitivity to dementia of the general practitioners. In addition, qualitative interviews were conducted.

RESULTS

Satisfaction with the overall project was high. Added value and relief factors were perceived and more effective and stable dementia care was achieved through collaboration with case management. Physicians reported increased subjective competence in diagnostics and disease management.

CONCLUSIONS

The results confirm the benefit and effectiveness of DemStepCare from general practitioner's perspective.

Primary care involvement in clinical research - prerequisites, motivators, and barriers: results from a study series

BACKGROUND

Long-term reinforcement in the role of primary care and improvement the healthcare system as a whole requires the involvement of GPs in clinical research processes. However, many clinical studies fail due to failure to achieve sample population targets amongst GPs and their patients. This issue has been identified and discussed, but effective strategies to overcome it are still lacking. One of the reasons is that the positions, requirements, and experiences of GPs on participating in clinical research have hardly been examined up to now.

METHODS

The years 2021 and 2022 saw three quantitative and qualitative surveys amongst GPs in Germany with the aim of shedding light on the attitudes, experiences, and potential issues regarding the involvement of primary care in clinical research projects and participation in cluster-randomised controlled trials (cRCTs) in a general sense. This overview summarises and abstracts conclusions gained from the exploratory series of studies and compares the results with the current research situation. From here, this contribution will then develop an approach towards optimising the integration of GPs into clinical research.

RESULTS

Most of the GPs asked associated clinical research with opportunities and potential such as closing gaps in healthcare, using evidence-based instruments, optimising diagnostic and therapeutic management, and reinforcement of multiprofessional healthcare. Even so, many GPs unsure as to how far primary care in particular would stand to benefit from studies of this type in the long term. Respondents were also divided on willingness to participate in clinical research. GPs having already participated in Innovation Fund projects generally saw a benefit regarding intervention and cost-benefit relationship. However, some also reported major hurdles and stress factors such as excessive documentation and enrolment requirements, greater interference in practice routines, and sometimes poor integration into project processes such as in communication and opportunities to play an active role in the project.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from the studies presented provide indications as to how GPs perceive clinical research projects and cRCTs as a whole and from their existing project experience, and on the requirements that studies would have to meet for GPs to be willing to participate. In particular, making sure that clinical studies fully conform with GPs would play a major role; this especially applies to freedom to make medical decisions, limitation of documentation obligations, interference in regular practice routine, greater involvement in research planning, and long-term reinforcement in the role of primary care. Clinical research projects and cRCTs should be planned, designed, and communicated for clear and visible relevance to everyday primary care.

Experiences with Innovation Fund healthcare models in primary care: a qualitative study amongst German general practitioners

The Innovation Fund was set up in 2015 with the aim of improving medical care in the German statutory health insurance system. Primary care needs to be involved in testing interventions and new forms of care for effectiveness and inclusion in standard care. There has so far been hardly any research on how far Innovation Fund models accommodate the primary care setting, or on the experience general practitioners have had with these models. Between September 2021 and January 2022, 36 semi-standardized individual interviews were performed with general practitioners who had already participated in Innovation Fund projects. Eleven regional physician networks in Rhineland-Palatinate, Hesse, North Rhine-Westphalia, and Schleswig-Holstein were involved in the recruitment process. Most of the interviewees associated the Innovation Fund with potential and opportunity including intensification of application-oriented healthcare research, independent financing, and general healthcare involvement. Even so, many general practitioners were unsure as to how far primary care in particular would stand to benefit from the Innovation Fund in the long term. A mostly positive balance was drawn from participation in care models-benefit of intervention as well as cost-benefit ratio. However, some also reported hurdles and stress factors such as documentation requirements and disruption in everyday office routine. Innovation Fund projects will need to be suitable for general practitioners especially regarding medical decision-making leeway, limits to documentation requirements, preserving established office routine, greater involvement in research planning, and improvements to the primary care setting to encourage willingness to participate in Innovation Fund projects amongst general practitioners.

Naming ability assessment in neurocognitive disorders: a clinician's perspective

BACKGROUND

Detecting impaired naming capacity is valuable in diagnosing neurocognitive disorders (ND). A. clinical practice- oriented overview of naming tests validated in ND is not available yet. Here, features of naming tests with validated utility in ND which are open access or available for purchase are succinctly presented and compared.

METHODS

Searches were carried out across Pubmed, Medline and Google Scholar. Additional studies were identified by searching reference lists. Only peer-reviewed journal articles were eligible. A narrative- and tabullar synthesis was used to summarize different aspects of the naming assessment instruments used in patients with ND such as stimuli type, administration time, assessment parameters and accessibility. Based on computational word frequency calculations, the tests were compared in terms of the average frequency of their linguistic content.

RESULTS

Twelve naming tests, relying either on visual or auditory stimuli have been validated in ND. Their content and administration time vary between three and 60 items and one and 20 minutes, respectively. The average frequency of the words of each considered test was two or lower, pointing to low frequency of most items. In all but one test, scoring systems are exclusively based on correctly named items. Seven instruments are open access and four are available in more than one language.

CONCLUSIONS

Gaining insights into naming tests' characteristics may catalyze the wide incorporation of those with short administration time but high diagnostic accuracy into the diagnostic workup of ND at primary healthcare and of extensive, visual or auditory ones into the diagnostic endeavors of memory clinics, as well as of secondary and tertiary brain healthcare settings.

[The German Innovation Fund and primary care-What expectations and experiences do general practitioners have with regard to participating in innovative care models?]

BACKGROUND

In 2015, the German Innovation Fund was established to promote improvements in the quality of medical care. In order for new care models and interventions to be tested and incorporated into standard care in the future, primary care must be included.

OBJECTIVES

The study explores general practitioners' (GPs') attitudes, participation-relevant expectations, and experiences with regard to Innovation Fund projects.

METHODS

Between July and October 2021, all 13,170 general practitioners in Baden-Württemberg, Hesse, and Rhineland-Palatinate were invited to take part in an online survey. Included in the evaluation were 3556 completed questionnaires (response rate: 27%). In addition to the descriptive analysis, a t-test on independent samples was used to determine significant differences between two groups.

RESULTS

Of the respondents, 83% were familiar with the Innovation Fund. Most of the respondents associate it with opportunities and potential (including intensification of application-oriented healthcare research, independent financing, and inclusion of primary care). Nevertheless, many GPs are unsure to what extent primary care can benefit from the Innovation Fund in the longer term. When it comes to willingness to participate in Innovation Fund studies, the respondents are divided. Respondents who have already participated in such projects (24%) draw a positive balance (benefit of the intervention, cost-benefit ratio). However, hurdles and stress factors are also reported, such as documentation requirements and interventions in practice processes.

CONCLUSIONS

In order to increase the attractiveness of the Innovation Fund for GPs, it is important to ensure that projects are fully compliant with primary care, especially with regard to the scope of medical decision-making, the limitation of documentation obligations, the guarantee of practice routines, a greater involvement in research planning, and an upgrading of the GP setting.

Slowing dementia symptoms - a qualitative study on attitudes and experiences of general practitioners in Germany

BACKGROUND

There is currently no cure for dementia but general practitioners (GPs) have therapeutic options available to counteract the progression of mild cognitive impairment, including drug and non-drug treatment. So far, few studies have investigated treatment strategies preferred by GPs.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to gain an overview of GPs' attitudes towards influencing the progression of dementia, their involvement regarding dementia prevention and perceived effective approaches. It also elucidated the challenges experienced by GPs and desired optimisation measures towards reinforcing secondary prevention.

METHODS

Between June 2020 and March 2021, 64 semi-standardised interviews amongst GPs were conducted in all federal states of Germany. Thirty interviews were carried out in person and 34 by phone. The data were analysed according to qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Many interviewees see great importance in secondary dementia prevention and believe they could make an effective contribution, some of them using non-drug approaches. GPs play a role in guiding patients and relatives towards support services. Some doctors consider drug treatment as the only option towards influencing the progression of dementia, showing low expectations on self-efficacy. Interdisciplinary collaboration is a frequent challenge, which often conflicts with a coherent treatment strategy.

CONCLUSION

Many GPs feel confident about influencing the progression of dementia and believe they can intervene effectively, using various (non-drug) treatment measures and referrals to support services. GPs perceive challenges, including obstacles in interdisciplinary collaboration and negative impacts after drug administration. To improve the conditions for GP intervention, it depends on expanding interdisciplinary collaboration and care strategies.

Prerequisites for providing effective support to family caregivers within the primary care setting - results of a study series in Germany

Background

General Practitioners are considered to be well placed to monitor home-care settings and to respond specifically to family caregivers. To do this, they must be sensitive to the needs and expectations of caregivers. In order to determine the current status of GP care in terms of the support given to family caregivers, a series of studies were conducted to gather the perspectives of both caregivers and GPs. The results are used to derive starting points as to which measures would be sensible and useful to strengthen support offered to family caregivers in the primary care setting.

Methods

Between 2020 and 2021, three sub-studies were conducted: a) an online survey of 612 family caregivers; b) qualitative interviews with 37 family caregivers; c) an online survey of 3556 GPs.

Results

Family caregivers see GPs as a highly skilled and trustworthy central point of contact; there are many different reasons for consulting them on the subject of care. In the perception of caregivers, particular weaknesses in GP support are the absence of signposting to advisory and assistance services and, in many cases, the failure to involve family caregivers in good time. At the same time, GPs do not always have sufficient attention to the physical and psychological needs of family caregivers. The doctors interviewed consider the GP practice to be well suited to being a primary point of contact for caregivers, but recognise that various challenges exist. These relate, among other things, to the timely organisation of appropriate respite services, targeted referral to support services or the early identification of informal caregivers.

Conclusions

GP practices can play a central role in supporting family caregivers. Caregivers should be approached by the practice team at an early stage and consistently signposted to help and support services. In order to support care settings successfully, it is important to consider the triadic constellation of needs, wishes and stresses of both the caregiver and the care recipient. More training and greater involvement of practice staff in the support and identification of caregivers seems advisable.

[General practitioners, attitudes, procedures and challenges towards supporting family caregivers - results of a survey of primary care physicians]

BACKGROUND

 General practitioners are considered to be well suited when it comes to addressing the information and care needs of family caregivers. The aim of the present study is to examine how general practitioners assess their possibilities to support caregivers, what priorities they set and to what extent they experience challenges.

METHODS AND PARTICIPANTS

 In the course of an online survey with a postal cover letter, a total of 3,556 GPs in in Baden-Württemberg, Hesse and Rhineland-Palatinate were interviewed between February and June 2021. Due to the exploratory approach of the study, only a descriptive data analysis was carried out.

RESULTS

 68 % of the GPs surveyed often deal with family caregivers in everyday practice; 77 % consider the GP's office to be well suited as the primary point of contact for family caregivers and care coordination. Often it is caregiving relatives who ask the GP about the issue of care (89 %). Frequent contents concern a deterioration in the care situation (75 %) and a change in the need for care (84 %); consultations in the initial phase of care are less common (40 %). There are differences between urban and rural doctors in the perception of the needs of caregivers and the setting of priorities. Rural doctors give more weight to proactive and psychosocial care, whereas doctors in urban regions rely on the specialist and support network. GPs experience various challenges while supporting caregivers, including the timely organization of suitable relief offers (87 %), the referral to suitable offers of help (79 %) or the early identification of informal caregivers (59 %).

DISCUSSION

 GPs can play a central role in supporting family caregivers. A crucial prerequisite for this is that family caregivers are recognized and involved at an early stage. Consistent references to offers of help make it easier for family caregivers to organize care and to receive (psychosocial) support. In addition, it is important that GPs take into account the needs, desires and stresses of both caregivers and those being cared for.