[Do gatekeeping programs increase equality of health care in Germany? A comparison of the health care situation of participants and nonparticipants]

Usability of an App for Medical History Taking in General Practice From the Patients' Perspective: Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

A future shortage of physicians, especially in general practice, will result in an increasing workload for health care providers as a whole. Therefore, it is important to optimize patient-encounter processes to increase time efficiency related to visits. Utilizing digital tools to record patients' medical histories prior to a consultation offers great potential to achieve this goal. The collected information can be stored into the practice's electronic medical record, allowing for the general practitioner to review structured information of the patients' complaints and related medical history beforehand, thereby saving time during the encounter. However, the low usability of new digital developments in this setting often hinders implementation.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the usability of an app designed for medical history taking in general practice to capture the patients' perspective.

METHODS

Between November 2021 and January 2022, we recruited 406 patients with acute complaints in one out-of-hour urgent care and seven general practice clinics. These study participants used the app during their waiting time and subsequently assessed its usability by completing the System Usability Scale (SUS), a robust and well-established 10-question survey measuring the perceived usability of products and technologies. Additionally, we collected general participant information, including age, sex, media usage, health literacy, and native language. Descriptive and inferential statistics were applied to identify patient characteristics associated with low or high SUS scores.

RESULTS

We analyzed data from 397 patients (56.7% female, 43.3% male). The mean total SUS score was 77.8 points; 54.4% (216/397) of participants had SUS scores of 80 points or higher, indicating high usability of the app. In a multiple linear regression predicting SUS score, male sex and higher age (65 years or older) were significantly negatively associated with the SUS score. Conversely, a higher health literacy score and German as the native language were significantly positively associated with the SUS score.

CONCLUSIONS

Usability testing based on the SUS anticipates successful implementation of the app. However, not all patients will easily adapt to utilizing the app, as exemplified by the participants of older age in this study who reported lower perceived usability. Further research should examine these groups of people, identify the exact problems in operating such an app, and provide targeted solutions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register World Health Organization Trial Registration Data Set DRKS00026659; https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=DRKS00026659.

Socioeconomic inequalities in primary-care and specialist physician visits: a systematic review

Background

Utilization of primary-care and specialist physicians seems to be associated differently with socioeconomic status (SES). This review aims to summarize and compare the evidence on socioeconomic inequalities in consulting primary-care or specialist physicians in the general adult population in high-income countries.

Methods

We carried out a systematic search across the most relevant databases (Web of Science, Medline) and included all studies, published since 2004, reporting associations between SES and utilization of primary-care and/or specialist physicians. In total, 57 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria.

Results

Many studies found socioeconomic inequalities in physician utilization, but inequalities were more pronounced in visiting specialists than primary-care physicians. The results of the studies varied strongly according to the operationalization of utilization, namely whether a physician was visited (probability) or how often a physician was visited (frequency). For probabilities of visiting primary-care physicians predominantly no association with SES was found, but frequencies of visits were higher in the most disadvantaged. The most disadvantaged often had lower probabilities of visiting specialists, but in many studies no link was found between the number of visits and SES.

Conclusion

This systematic review emphasizes that inequalities to the detriment of the most deprived is primarily a problem in the probability of visiting specialist physicians. Healthcare policy should focus first off on effective access to specialist physicians in order to tackle inequalities in healthcare.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42019123222.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12939-020-01375-1.

How does the integration of collaborative care elements in a gatekeeping system affect the costs for mental health care in Germany?

Mental disorders are widespread, debilitating and associated with high costs. In Germany, usual care (UC) for mental disorders is afflicted by poor coordination between providers and long waiting times. Recently, the primary alternative to UC-the gatekeeping-based general practitioners (GP) program-was extended by the collaborative Psychiatry-Neurology-Psychotherapy (PNP) program, which is a selective contract designed to improve mental health care and the allocation of resources. Here, we assess the effects of the GP program and the PNP program on costs for mental health care. We analyzed claims data from 2014 to 2016 of 55,472 adults with a disorder addressed by PNP to compare costs and sick leave days between PNP, the GP program and UC. The individuals were grouped and balanced via entropy balancing to adjust for potentially confounding covariates. We employed a negative binomial model to compare sick leave days and two-part models to compare sick pay, outpatient, inpatient and medication costs over a 12-month period. The PNP program significantly reduced sick pay by 164€, compared to UC, and by 177€, compared to the GP program. Consistently, sick leave days were lower in PNP. We found lower inpatient costs in PNP than in UC (-194€) and in the GP program (-177€), but no reduction in those shares of inpatient costs that accrued in psychiatric or neurological departments. Our results suggest that integrating collaborative care elements in a gatekeeping system can favourably impact costs. In contrast, we found no evidence that the widely implemented GP program reduces costs for mental health care.

Regional and patient-related factors influencing the willingness to use general practitioners as coordinators of the treatment in northern Germany - results of a cross-sectional observational study

Background

In most countries, the general practitioner (GP) is the first point of contact in the healthcare system and coordinator of healthcare. However, in Germany it is possible to consult an outpatient specialist even without referral. Coordination by a GP might thus reduce health expenditures and inequalities in the healthcare system. The study describes the patients’ willingness/commitment to use the GP as coordinator of healthcare and identifies regional and patient-related factors associated with the aforementioned commitment to the GP.

Methods

Cross-sectional observational study using a standardised telephone patient survey in northern Germany. All counties and independent cities within a radius of 120 km around Hamburg were divided into three regional categories (urban areas, environs, rural areas) and stratified proportionally to the population size. Patients who had consulted the GP within the previous three months, and had been patients of the practice for at least three years were randomly selected from medical records of primary care practices in these districts and recruited for the study. Multivariate linear regression models adjusted for random effects at the level of federal states, administrative districts and practices were used as statistical analysis methods.

Results

Eight hundred eleven patients (25.1%) from 186 practices and 34 administrative districts were interviewed. The patient commitment to a GP attained an average of 20 out of 24 possible points. Significant differences were found by sex (male vs. female: + 1.14 points, p < 0.001), morbidity (+ 0.10 per disease, p = 0.043), education (high vs. low: − 1.74, p < 0.001), logarithmised household net adjusted disposable income (− 0.93 per step on the logarithmic scale, p = 0.004), regional category (urban areas: − 0.85, p = 0.022; environs: − 0.80, p = 0.045) and healthcare utilisation (each GP contact: + 0.30, p < 0.001; each contact to a medical specialist: − 0.75, p = 0.018). Professional situation and age were not significantly associated with the GP commitment.

Conclusion

On average, the patients’ commitment to their GP was relatively strong, but there were large differences between patient groups. An increase in the patient commitment to the GP could be achieved through better patient information and targeted interventions, e.g. to women or patients from regions of higher urban density.

Trial registration

The study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02558322).

Challenges for gatekeeping: a qualitative systems analysis of a pilot in rural China

BACKGROUND

Gatekeeping involves a generalist doctor who controls patients' access to specialist care, and has been discussed as an important policy option to rebalance the primary care and hospital sectors in low- and middle-income countries, despite thin evidence. A gatekeeping pilot in a Chinese rural setting launched in 2013 has offered an opportunity to study the functioning of gatekeeping under such conditions.

METHODS

In this qualitative study within a mixed-method evaluation of the gatekeeping pilot, we developed an innovative systems analysis method, combining the World Health Organisation categorisation of health system building blocks, the "Framework" approach of policy analysis and causal loop analysis. We conducted in-depth interviews with 20 stakeholders from 4 groups (patients, doctors, health facility managers and government administrators) in the pilot area over two years. Based on information extracted from the interviews, we drew a causal loop diagram which highlighted the feedback loops within the system that had self-reinforcing or self-balancing characteristics, and used the diagram to examine systematically the mechanisms of intended and actual functioning of gatekeeping and analyse the systems level challenges that affected the effectiveness of gatekeeping.

RESULTS

Had the gatekeeping pilot programme worked as intended, it would incentivize both providers and patients to increase service utilization at primary care level, as well as establish and enhance two reinforcing feedback loops to shift balance towards primary care. However, a performance-based salary policy undermined the motivation for clinical primary care. Furthermore, the primary care providers suffered from three reinforcing feedback loops (related to primary care capacity, human resource sustainability, patients' faith) that trapped primary care development in vicious cycles. At the interface between hospitals and primary care providers, there were also feedback loops exacerbating the existing hospital dominance. These feedback loops were intensified by the unintended consequences of concurrent policies (restrictions on technologies and medicines) and delayed reform in hospitals. Furthermore, the gatekeeping policy itself faced resistance to further development, due to the prevailing ineffective and ritualistic nature of gatekeeping, which formed a balancing loop.

CONCLUSIONS

The study shows that the intended benefits of gatekeeping were illusionary largely due to weak and worsening primary care conditions, and delay, ineffectiveness or unintended consequences of several other ongoing reforms. One particularly dangerous development of the system, which deserves urgent attention, is the harming of the professional prospects of primary care doctors. Our findings highlight the need for coordination and prioritization in designing policies related to primary care and managing changes with multiple on-going reforms. The approach used here facilitates comprehensive study of intended and actual mechanisms, and demonstrates the challenges of a complex health system intervention in a dynamic environment.

Costs of coordinated versus uncoordinated care in Germany: results of a routine data analysis in Bavaria

OBJECTIVES

The efficiency of a gatekeeping system for a health system, as in Germany, remains unclear particularly as access to specialist ambulatory care is not restricted. The aim was to compare the costs of coordinated versus uncoordinated patients (UP) in ambulatory care; with additional subgroup analysis of patients with mental disorders.

DESIGN

Retrospective routine data analysis of patients with statutory health insurance, using claims data held by the Bavarian Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians. A patient was defined as uncoordinated if he or she visited at least 1 specialist without a referral from a general practitioner within a quarter. Outcomes were compared with propensity score matching analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

The study encompassed all statutorily insured patients in Bavaria contacting at least 1 ambulatory specialist in the first quarter of 2011 (n=3 616 510).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was total costs of ambulatory care; secondary outcomes were financial claims of general physicians, specialists and for medication.

RESULTS

The average age was 55.3 years for coordinated patients (CP, n=1 629 302), 48.3 years for UP (n=1 825 840). CP more frequently had chronic diseases (85.4%) as compared with UP (67.5%). The total unadjusted financial claim per patient was higher for UP (€234.52) than for CP (€224.41); the total adjusted difference was -€9.65 (95% CI -11.64 to -7.67), indicating lower costs for CP. The cost differences increased with increasing age. Total adjusted difference per patient with mental diseases as documented with an International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 F-diagnosis, was -€20.31 (95% CI -26.43 to -14.46).

CONCLUSIONS

Coordination of care is associated with lower ambulatory healthcare expenditures and is of particular importance for patients who are more vulnerable to medical interventions, especially for elderly and patients with mental disorders. The role of general practitioners as coordinators should be strengthened to improve care for these patients as this could also help to frame a more efficient health system.