Introduction: This study examines the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on outpatient care in the German federal state of Brandenburg during the first 'lockdown' between 22 March and 4 May 2020, focusing on the burden for physicians and psychotherapists in outpatient practices and on alternative ways to provide care, in particular telehealth. Methods: We conducted an online cross-sectional survey among outpatient health care professionals. The responses of n = 277 physicians and n = 87 psychotherapists were included in the analysis. Frequencies are shown; the relationship between categorical variables was examined using the 2 test; we used a qualitative content analysis for free text answers. Results: Almost all (96 %) physicians and 59 % of the psychotherapists reported a patient volume reduction since the COVID-19 outbreak. Cancellations were most often initiated by patients rather than physician offices. Among the physicians, routine check-ups and preventive care consultations were cancelled most frequently, and patients also appeared less frequently in open consultations. 72 % of the physicians and 29 % of the psychotherapists reported economic losses. While personal patient-physician contact was reduced, the use of telehealth has increased since the COVID-19 outbreak: during the first 'lockdown',

IntroductionSecond opinion programmes aim to support the patients’ decision-making process and to avoid treatments that are unnecessary from a medical perspective. The German second opinion directive, introduced in December 2018, constitutes a new legal framework in statutory health insurance for seeking second opinions for elective procedures and so far includes tonsillectomy, tonsillotomy, hysterectomy and shoulder arthroscopy. The directive mandates physicians who recommend one of the above-mentioned surgeries to inform their patients of their legal right to visit a certified second opinion provider. Since second opinion programmes are a fairly recent phenomenon in Germany, no comprehensive data are yet available on the degree of implementation, users, potential barriers and their effectiveness. We aim to examine the characteristics and the use of second opinion programmes as well as the needs and wishes from the perspective of (potential) users in Germany, with focus on the decision-making process, the patient–physician relationship and the motivation to seek a second opinion, as well as the role of health literacy.Methods and analysisSix substudies will include the following stakeholders: (1 and 2) patients with one of the four surgery-indications covered by the directive, (3) patients who electively sought an online-based second opinion, (4) patients with oncological diseases, (5) the general population and (6) medical specialists. A mixed-methods approach will be used, including questionnaires, interviews and focus groups. The data will be evaluated using quantitative descriptive analysis and qualitative content analysis. The integration of the results will take place in the form of a triangulation protocol.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Brandenburg Medical School. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences.

Objective To explore health care professionals’ (HCPs) perspectives, experiences and preferences towards digital technology use in routine palliative care delivery. Methods HCPs (n = 19) purposively selected from a sample of settings that reflect routine palliative care delivery (i.e. specialized outpatient palliative care, inpatient palliative care, inpatient hospice care in both rural and urban areas of the German states of Brandenburg and Berlin) participated in an explorative, qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Interview data were analyzed using structured qualitative content analysis. Results Digital technologies are widely used in routine palliative care and are well accepted by HCPs. Central functions of digital technologies as experienced in palliative care are coordination of work processes, patient-centered care, and communication. Especially in outpatient care, they facilitate overcoming spatial and temporal distances. HCPs attribute various benefits to digital technologies that contribute to better coordinated, faster, more responsive, and overall more effective palliative care. Simultaneously, participants preferred technology as an enhancement not replacement of care delivery. HCPs fear that digital technologies, if overused, will contribute to dehumanization and thus significantly reduce the quality of palliative care. Conclusion Digital technology is already an essential part of routine palliative care delivery. While generally perceived as useful by HCPs, digital technologies are considered as having limitations and carrying risks. Hence, their use and consequences must be carefully considered, as they should discreetly complement but not replace human interaction in palliative care delivery.

A new Second Opinion Directive (SOD) was introduced in Germany in December 2018 for hysterectomy, tonsillotomy, and tonsillectomy to support shared decision making and to avoid unnecessary surgeries. Owing to its recent implementation, evidence and insights regarding outcomes and challenges encountered with the SOD are lacking, notably from the physicians’ perspective. To assess this, we undertook an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design with an initial qualitative phase followed by a quantitative evaluation. A qualitative analysis of 22 interviews with specialists in gynecology and otorhinolaryngology was followed by a statistical analysis of a survey of 136 physicians in those disciplines. The specialists expressed a generally positive opinion of the new SOD, emphasizing the aspects of patient orientation, support in decision making, and patient safety. However, they also highlighted the following structural problems regarding the SOD implementation: In addition to an increased organisational effort, the specialists criticised the SOD with regard to its implementation in rural regions with a low availability of specialists for referral. Barriers that impede the implementation of the current directive, such as the adaptation of the qualifying requirements for authorized second opinion physicians, as well as the inclusion of relevant indications, need focused consideration to obtain better alignment with everyday practice.