Leichenschau und Todesbescheinigung durch den Hausarzt: Probleme beim Bescheinigen vor Ort

[Preliminary and Final Postmortem Examination and Death Certificate in the Emergency Medical Services in Germany: Heterogeneous Process Flows and Inadequate Standards]

BACKGROUND

Inconsistent regulations and laws can lead to misunderstandings and incorrect procedures. In this study we would like to evaluate the heterogeneity of the different processes of postmortem examination and death certification in the German emergency medical services.

METHODS

An e-mail with a survey link was sent to 212 medical directors of emergency services. The questions were answered online.

RESULTS

The response rate was 47%. Regulated procedures were evident in 58% of the cases. Issue of provisional death certificate comprised 64%, postmortem examination 45%; 19.4% of emergency physicians were required to do the final post-mortem. In 41% of the cases, the application protocol was considered sufficient as a form of documentation. 45% of the participants evaluated the respective legal regulation as sufficient. Questions and concerns arose, especially when medical directors of EMS believed that the state-specific regulations were not sufficient (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The results show that the obligatory post-mortem examination in Germany is heterogeneous in its processing procedures. More than half of the participants rate the existing legal regulations as inadequate. As a result, it is not uncommon for queries and complaints to arise, but above all for uncertainties to arise in everyday practice. Our results suggest that uniform legislation and clearly defined processes are desirable.

Vergleichende Untersuchungen zu Todesart und Todesursache bei Pflegeheim- und Nicht-Pflegeheimbewohnern

Hintergrund

Die Qualität der ärztlichen Leichenschau wird häufig diskutiert. Gerade bei älteren Verstorbenen erschweren Multimorbidität oder fehlende Informationen zur Krankenvorgeschichte die Benennung der Todesursache. Es wurde ausgewertet, ob bei Pflegeheim- und Nicht-Pflegeheimbewohnern Unterschiede im Hinblick auf die Attestierung der Todesart und -ursache sowie Anordnung einer Obduktion bestehen.

Material und Methode

Retrospektiv wurden aus rechtsmedizinischen Fallakten die Angaben zu Todesart und -ursache auf den Todesbescheinigungen mit den Ergebnissen der im Zeitraum von 2007 bis 2018 durchgeführten Obduktionen bei über 60-jährigen Verstorbenen verglichen. Ferner wurden die Gründe für die Anordnung einer Obduktion ausgewertet. Das Kollektiv wurde in die Gruppen Pflegeheimbewohner und Nicht-Pflegeheimbewohner unterteilt.

Ergebnisse

Ausgewertet wurden 2278 Fallakten (11,3 % Pflegeheimbewohner, 88,7 % Nicht-Pflegeheimbewohner). Bei Pflegeheimbewohnern bedurften v. a. Sturzereignisse (54,4 %) der rechtsmedizinischen Abklärung, bei Nicht-Pflegeheimbewohnern ärztliche Interventionen und Verletzungen (jeweils ca. 35 %). Die Todesart auf der Todesbescheinigung stimmte bei 69,8 % der Pflegeheimbewohner und bei 73,0 % der Nicht-Pflegeheimbewohner mit dem Obduktionsergebnis überein. Bei 14,1 % der Pflegeheimbewohner und 25,4 % der Nicht-Pflegeheimbewohner wurde autoptisch statt einer natürlichen eine nichtnatürliche Todesart festgestellt. Die Übereinstimmung der Todesursache lag bei Pflegeheimbewohnern bei 66,0 %, bei Nicht-Pflegeheimbewohnern bei 73,1 %.

Schlussfolgerung

Die Leichenschau sollte auch bei älteren Verstorbenen, insbesondere Pflegeheimbewohnern, kritisch erfolgen, und es sollte häufiger eine Obduktion zur Klärung der Todesart und -ursache angestrebt werden.

Rate of opioid use disorder in adults who received prescription opioid pain therapy-A secondary data analysis

Background and aims

Data on rates of prescription opioid use disorder (pOUD) in European countries is limited. The aim of this investigation was to analyze a representative population sample regarding the 1-year prevalence of opioid use disorder in patients who received prescription opioid pain therapy and to identify related risk factors.

Design

Cross-sectional secondary data analysis

Setting

Secondary data analysis based on data from the 2015 Epidemiological Survey of Substance Abuse (ESA 2015) in Germany

Participants

German-speaking individuals living in private households aged 18 to 64 years were investigated. A total of 9204 individuals participated in the survey, resulting in a response rate of 52.2%.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Primary outcome measure was the weighted prevalence of pOUD in the subgroup of study participants who had received prescription opioids. Secondary outcome measure was an analysis of risk factors connected with pOUD in the same subgroup.

Findings

A total of n = 9204 participants were included in the study of which n = 275 had received an opioid prescription in the last 12 months of which n = 54 were diagnosed with pOUD. The weighted 1-year prevalence of pOUD was 21.2% (mild: 14.7% | moderate: 3.5% | severe: 2.9%). Participants who had received opioid pain therapy had significantly higher odds of pOUD if they reported signs of depression (OR: 2.69; CI 95%: 1.13–6.38), inexplicable physical complaints (OR: 2.68; CI 95%: 1.14–6.31) or a psychiatric diagnosis (OR: 4.12; CI 95%: 1.36–12.43), and significantly lower odds of pOUD if they reported the use of non-opioid painkillers (OR: 0.27; CI 95%: 0.09–0.81).

Conclusions

pOUD is a common phenomenon in working-age patients who receive prescription opioid pain therapy in Germany and may be related to the co-existence of psychosomatic and psychiatric disorders such as depression.

[ICD coding of causes of death: challenges for calculating the burden of disease in Germany]

In the project BURDEN 2020 - "The burden of disease in Germany and its regions" - the years of life lost (YLL) due to premature mortality are calculated on the basis of official cause-of-death statistics. This requires the identification and redistribution of the so-called ill-defined ICD codes. "Ill-defined" means that an ICD code does not sufficiently reflect the cause of death, such that it is not informative for the calculation of the burden of disease.The first steps on the way to calculating cause-specific YLL are presented. Different frameworks of ill-defined codes are compared. The number of deaths with ill-defined codes that can be found in the German cause-of-death statistics in absolute and relative terms are analyzed, including how they are distributed by age, sex, and region.According to the WHO framework, 15.6% of the 925,200 deaths in Germany in 2015 can be identified as ill-defined. According to the framework of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) in the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD), the proportion of ill-defined codes is 26.6%. The ICD-related distribution patterns hardly differ between WHO and IHME classifications. Considerable differences exist between the federal states, with shares of ill-defined codes between 16 and 35% (IHME framework).The cause-of-death statistics in Germany contain a considerable proportion of ill-defined codes. The differences between the federal states can only partially be explained by different electronic data processing. Due to further dissemination and improvement of electronic data collection, higher quality of cause-of-death statistics can be expected in the future.