Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background The Perinatal Center of the University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden has initiated the telemedical healthcare network “SAFE BIRTH” to coordinate and improve specialized care in non-metropolitan regions for pregnant women and newborns. The network incorporates five intervention bundles (IB): (1) Multi-professional, inter-disciplinary prenatal care plan; (2) Neonatal resuscitation; (3) Neonatal antibiotic stewardship; (4) Inter-facility transfer of premature and sick newborns; (5) Psycho-social support for parents. We evaluate if the network improves care close to home for pregnant women, premature and sick newborns. Methods To evaluate the complex healthcare intervention “SAFE BIRTH” we will conduct a cluster-randomized controlled stepped-wedge trial in five prenatal medical outpatient offices and eight non-metropolitan hospitals in Saxony, Germany. The offices and hospitals will be randomly allocated to five respectively eight sequential steps over a 30-month period to implement the telemedical IB. We define one specific primary process outcome for each IB (for instance IB#1: “ Proportion of patients with inclusion criterion IB#1 who have a prenatal care plan and psychosocial counseling within one week” ). We estimated a separate multilevel logistic regression model for each primary process outcome using the intervention status as a regressor (control or intervention group). Across all IB, a total of 1,541 and 1,417 pregnant women or newborns need to be included in the intervention and control group, respectively, for a power above 80% for small to medium intervention effects for all five hypothesis tests. Additionally, we will assess job satisfaction and sense of safety of health professionals caring for newborns (questionnaire survey) and we will assess families’ satisfaction, resilience, quality of life and depressive, anxiety and stress symptoms (questionnaire surveys). We will also evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ”SAFE BIRTH” (statutory health insurance routine data, process data) and barriers to its implementation (semi-structured interviews). We use multilevel regression models adjusting for relevant confounders (e.g. socioeconomic status, age, place of residence), as well as descriptive analyses and qualitative content analyses. Discussion If the telemedical healthcare network “SAFE BIRTH” proves to be effective and cost-efficient, strategies for its translation into routine care should be developed. Trial registration German clinical trials register. DRKS-ID: DRKS00031482.

Background Model projects for flexible and integrated treatment (FIT) in Germany aim at advancing the quality of care for people with mental disorders. A new FIT model project was established in 2017 at the Department of child and adolescent psychiatry (KJP) of the University Hospital Tübingen (Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, UKT). The study design of EVA_TIBAS presented here describes the evaluation of the FIT model project at the KJP of the UKT. This evaluation aims at quantifying the anticipated FIT model project changes, which are to improve patients’ cross-sectoral care at the same maximum cost as standard care. Methods EVA_TIBAS is a controlled cohort study using a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods. The FIT evaluation consists of three modules. In Module A, anonymized claims data of a statutory health insurance fund will be used to compare outcomes (duration of inpatient and day care psychiatric treatment, inpatient and day care psychiatric length of stay, outpatient psychiatric treatment in hospital, inpatient hospital readmission, emergency admission rate, direct medical costs) of patients treated in the model hospital with patients treated in structurally comparable control hospitals (estimated sample size = ca. 600 patients). In Module B, patient-reported outcomes (health related quality of life, symptom burden, return to psychosocial relationships (e.g. school, friends, hobbies), treatment satisfaction, societal costs) will be assessed quantitatively using validated questionnaires for the model and two control hospitals (estimated sample size = ca. 300 patients). A subsequent health economic evaluation will be based on cost-effectiveness analyses from both the insurance fund’s and the societal perspective. In Module C, about 30 semi-structured interviews will examine the quality of offer, effects and benefits of the service offered by the social service of the AOK Baden-Württemberg (for stabilizing the overall situation of care in the family) in the model hospital. A focus group discussion will address the quality of cooperation between employees of the university hospital and the social services. Discussion The results of this evaluation will be used to inform policy makers whether this FIT model project or aspects of it should be implemented into standard care. Trial registration This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov PRS (ID: NCT04727359 , date: 27 January 2021).

PurposeCancer care in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic was affected by resource scarcity and the necessity to prioritize medical measures. This study explores ethical criteria for prioritization and their application in cancer practices from the perspective of German oncologists and other experts.MethodsWe conducted fourteen semi-structured interviews with German oncologists between February and July 2021 and fed findings of interviews and additional data on prioritizing cancer care into four structured group discussions, in January and February 2022, with 22 experts from medicine, nursing, law, ethics, health services research and health insurance. Interviews and group discussions were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using qualitative content analysis.ResultsNarratives of the participants focus on “urgency” as most acceptable criterion for prioritization in cancer care. Patients who are considered curable and those with a high level of suffering, were given a high degree of “urgency.” However, further analysis indicates that the “urgency” criterion needs to be further distinguished according to at least three different dimensions: “urgency” to (1) prevent imminent harm to life, (2) prevent future harm to life and (3) alleviate suffering. In addition, “urgency” is modulated by the “success,” which can be reached by means of an intervention, and the “likelihood” of reaching that success.ConclusionOur analysis indicates that while “urgency” is a well-established criterion, its operationalization in the context of oncology is challenging. We argue that combined conceptual and clinical analyses are necessary for a sound application of the “urgency” criterion to prioritization in cancer care.