No abstract

A conceptually, culturally and linguistically equivalent version of the original instrument IDC-Pal was obtained. German family physicians agreed on the usability of IDC-Pal as a tool for rating the case complexity of palliative patients. These results indicate that physicians in Bavaria and eventually in Germany could benefit of the full validation of IDC-Pal.

An efficient primary care is of particular importance for any countries' health care system. Many differences exist on how distinctive countries try to obtain the goal of an efficient, cost-effective primary care for its population. In this article we conducted a selective literature review, which includes both scientific and socio-political publications. The findings are complemented with the experience of a Spanish physician from Seville in her last year of training in family medicine, who completed a four months long rotation in the German health care system. We highlighted different features by comparing both countries, including their health care expenditure, the relation between primary and secondary care, the organization in the academic field and the training of future primary care physicians. It is clear that primary care in both countries plays a central role, have to deal with shortcomings, and in some points one system can learn from the other.

For advanced cancer inpatients, the established standard for gathering information about symptom burden involves a daily assessment by nursing staff using validated assessments. In contrast, a systematic assessment of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is required, but it is not yet systematically implemented. We hypothesized that current practice results in underrating the severity of patients’ symptom burden. To explore this hypothesis, we have established systematic electronic PROMs (ePROMs) using validated instruments at a major German Comprehensive Cancer Center. In this retrospective, non-interventional study, lasting from September 2021 to February 2022, we analyzed collected data from 230 inpatients. Symptom burden obtained by nursing staff was compared to the data acquired by ePROMs. Differences were detected by performing descriptive analyses, Chi-Square tests, Fisher’s exact, Phi-correlation, Wilcoxon tests, and Cohen’s r. Our analyses pointed out that pain and anxiety especially were significantly underrated by nursing staff. Nursing staff ranked these symptoms as non-existent, whereas patients stated at least mild symptom burden (pain: meanNRS/epaAC = 0 (no); meanePROM = 1 (mild); p < 0.05; r = 0.46; anxiety: meanepaAC = 0 (no); meanePROM = 1 (mild); p < 0.05; r = 0.48). In conclusion, supplementing routine symptom assessment used daily by nursing staff with the systematic, e-health-enabled acquisition of PROMs may improve the quality of supportive and palliative care.

electronic health record. Travel time from a patient's home to closest OSPC clinic was determined with Arc-GIS 10.5 (ESRI, Redlands, CA). Results. 9485 unique patients with advanced solid tumor cancer received oncologic care within UPMCCCN in 2016. 385 patients (4%) used OSPC, while 9100 patients (96%) did not. Patients who utilized OSPC were younger (mean age 60 v. 69 years; p<0.0001) and lived closer to an OSPC clinic (mean travel time 42 v. 61 min; p<0.0001). Patients receiving care at a primary oncology practice with a collocated OSPC clinic had significantly higher utilization of OSPC (11.4%) compared to those without a collocated OSPC clinic (0.62%, p<0.0001). Conclusion. OSPC utilization was low among patients with advanced solid tumor cancer. Older and more remote populations are at higher risk for decreased utilization.