No abstract

The analysis indicates that there are specific regions in Saxony-Anhalt and diagnoses where the indications for LHC should be more conservative. However, more detailed analyses are needed to verify the identified potentials for improving healthcare provision.

ZusammenfassungHunderttausende Menschen mit Sepsis- und Infektionsfolgen werden derzeit in Deutschland nicht optimal versorgt. Dieses White Paper stellt Maßnahmen zur Verbesserung der Versorgung vor, die von einer multidisziplinären Expertengruppe im Rahmen des Innovationsfonds-Projektes SEPFROK erarbeitet wurden. Eine optimale Versorgung beruht auf 4 Säulen: 1. der sektorenübergreifenden Erfassung der Folgen und einem strukturierten Entlass- und Überleitungsmanagement, 2. einem gezielten Angebot von interdisziplinärer Rehabilitation- und Nachsorge mit struktureller Unterstützung, 3. der Stärkung der spezifischen Gesundheitskompetenz von Betroffenen und Angehörigen und 4. der Intensivierung der Forschung zu Ursachen, Prävention und Therapie der Folgen. Hierfür müssen entsprechende sektorenübergreifende Versorgungsstrukturen und sozialrechtliche Rahmenbedingungen geschaffen werden.

Objectives/Background In many countries, the use of emergency medical services (EMS) increases steadily each year. At the same time, the percentage of life-threatening complaints decreases. To redesign the system, an assessment and consideration of the patients’ perspectives is helpful. Methods We conducted a paper-based survey of German EMS patients who had at least one case of prehospital emergency care in 2016. Four health insurance companies sent out the questionnaire to 1312 insured persons. We linked the self-reported data of 254 respondents to corresponding claims data provided by their health insurance companies. The analysis focuses a.) how strongly patients tend to call EMS for themselves and others given different health-related scenarios, b.) self-perceived health complaints in their own index case of prehospital emergency care and c.) subjective emergency status in combination with so-called “objective” characteristics of subsequent EMS and inpatient care. We report principal diagnoses of (1) respondents, (2) 57,240 EMS users who are not part of the survey and (3) all 20,063,689 inpatients in German hospitals. Diagnoses for group 1 and 2 only cover the inpatient stay that started on the day of the last EMS use in 2016. Results According to the survey, the threshold to call an ambulance is lower for someone else than for oneself. In 89% of all cases during their own EMS use, a third party called the ambulance. The most common, self-reported complaints were pain (38%), problems with heart and circulation (32%), and loss of consciousness (17%). The majority of respondents indicated that their EMS use was due to an emergency (89%). We could detect no or only weak associations between patients’ subjective urgency and different items for objective care. Conclusion Dispatchers can possibly optimize or reduce the disposition of EMS staff and vehicles if they spoke directly to the patients more often. Nonetheless, there is need for further research on how strongly the patients’ perceived urgency may affect the disposition, rapidness of the service and transport targets.

Introduction Many countries face an increased use of emergency medical services (EMS) with a decreasing percentage of life-threatening complaints. Though there is a broad discussion among experts about the cause, patients' self-perceived, non-medical reasons for using EMS remain largely unknown. Methods The written survey included EMS patients who had≥1 case of prehospital emergency care in 2016. Four German health insurance companies sent out postal questionnaires to 1312 insured patients. The response rate was 20%; 254 questionnaires were eligible for descriptive and interferential analyses (t-tests, chi2-tests, logistic models). Results The majority of respondents indicated that their EMS use was due to an emergency or someone else’s decision (≥84%; multiple checks allowed); 56% gave need for a quick transport as a reason. Other frequently stated reasons addressed the health care system (e. g., complaints outside of physicians’ opening hours) and insecurity/anxiety about one’s state of health (>45% of the respondents). “Social factors” were similarly important (e. g., 42% affirming, “No one could give me a ride to the emergency department or doctor’s office.”). Every fifth person had contact with other emergency care providers prior to EMS use. Respondents negating an emergency as a reason were less likely to confirm wanting immediate medical care on site or quick transports compared to those affirming an emergency. Patients using EMS at night more often denied having an emergency compared to patients with access to care during the day. Conclusion The study identified a bundle of reasons leading to EMS use apart from medical complaints. Attempts for needs-oriented EMS use should essentially include optimization of the health care and social support system and measures to reduce patients’ insecurity.