BackgroundThe treatment of upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) accounts for the majority of antibiotic prescriptions in primary care, although an antibiotic therapy is rarely indicated. Nonclinical factors, such as time pressure and the perceived patient expectations are considered to be reasons for prescribing antibiotics in cases where they are not indicated. The improper use of antibiotics, however, can promote resistance and cause serious side effects. The aim of the study was to clarify whether the antibiotic prescription rate for infections of the upper respiratory tract can be lowered by means of a short (2 x 2.25h) communication training based on the MAAS-Global-D for primary care physicians. MethodsIn total, 1554 primary care physicians were invited to participate in the study. The control group was formed from observational data. To estimate intervention effects we applied a combination of difference-in-difference (DiD) and statistical matching based on entropy balancing. We estimated a corresponding multi-level logistic regression model for the antibiotic prescribing decision of German primary care physicians for URTIs. ResultsUnivariate estimates detected an 11-percentage-point reduction of prescriptions for the intervention group after the training. For the control group, a reduction of 4.7% was detected. The difference between both groups in the difference between the periods was -6.5% and statistically significant. The estimated effects were nearly identical to the effects estimated for the multi-level logistic regression model with applied matching. Furthermore, for the treatment of young women, the impact of the training on the reduction of antibiotic prescription was significantly stronger.

BackgroundIn response to a rising shortage of general practitioners (GPs), physicians in general internal medicine (GIM) have become part of the German primary care physician workforce. Previous studies have shown substantial differences in practice patterns between both specialties. The aim of this study was to analyse and compare the application of procedures by German GPs and GIM physicians based on routine data.MethodsThe Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians in the federal state Schleswig-Holstein (Northern Germany) provided invoicing data of the first quarters of 2013 and 2015. Differences between GPs and GIM physicians in the implementation rate of 46 selected primary care procedures were examined by means of the Pearson χ2-test. The selection of procedures was based on international and own preliminary studies on primary care procedures.ResultsIn the first quarter of 2013/2015 respectively, 1228/1227 GPs and 447/484 GIM physicians provided services in Schleswig-Holstein. Significant differences were found for 20 of the 46 procedures. GPs had higher application rates of procedures concerning health screening (e.g. adolescent health examination, well-child visits) and minor surgery. GIM physicians more often applied technology-oriented procedures, such as ultrasound scans, electrocardiograms (ECG), and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure measurements. The treatment patterns of both specialities did not vary much during the study period. Cardiac stress testing was the only significantly increased GP procedure in that time.ConclusionsOur results suggest substantial differences in the application of procedures between GPs and GIM physicians with potential consequences for the overall primary healthcare provision. The findings could foster a discussion about training needs for procedures in primary care to ensure its comprehensiveness. The results reflect scope for changes in vocational training in the future for an effective and efficient re-allocation of primary healthcare.

BackgroundPrimary care physicians account for the majority of antibiotic prescribing in ambulatory care in Germany. Respiratory diseases are, regardless of effectiveness, often treated with antibiotics. Research has found this use without indication to be caused largely by communication problems (e.g. expectations on the patient’s part or false assumptions about them by the physician). The present randomised controlled trial (RCT) study evaluates whether communication training for primary care physicians can reduce the antibiotic prescribing rate for respiratory tract infections.Methods/DesignThe study consists of three groups: group A will receive communication training; group B will be given the same, plus additional, access to an evidence-based point-of-care tool; and group C will function as the control group. The primary endpoint is the difference between intervention and control groups regarding the antibiotic prescribing rate before and after the intervention assessed through routine data. The communication skills are captured with the help of the communication instrument MAAS-Global-D, as well as individual videos of physician-patient consultations recorded by the primary care physicians. These skills will also be regarded with respect to the antibiotic prescribing rate.A process evaluation using qualitative as well as quantitative methods should provide information about barriers and enablers to implementing the communication training.DiscussionThe trial contributes to an insight into the effectiveness of the different components to reduce antibiotic prescribing, which will also be supported by an extensive evaluation. Communication training could be an effective method of reducing antibiotic prescribing in primary care.Trial registrationDRKS00009566Date registration5 November 2015.

Objective: In many places in Germany, the need for primary care physicians has been steadily increasing for several years, especially in rural areas. It is hypothesized that physicians are more likely to practice in rural areas if they have received a broad education and vocational training. Differences between general practitioners (GPs) and physicians in general internal medicine (GIM) in the breadth of their vocational training are created by the underlying distinct training schemes. The aim of the analysis was to test whether GPs and GIM physicians differ in their distribution between urban and rural regions of Schleswig-Holstein and whether there are differences in the rate and frequency of performing home visits. Methods: Based on invoicing data of the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians in the federal state of Schleswig-Holstein (Northern Germany) covering the years 2015 up to the third quarter (Q3) of 2018, we analysed differences between GPs and GIM physicians in their regional distribution. Furthermore, we looked at differences between both specialties regarding the application rate and the number of home visits performed and unforeseen physician visits. In addition to bivariate approaches, we also used multivariate regression analysis. Results: Between 2017 (Q4) and 2018 (Q3), 1,378 GPs and 585 GIM physicians provided medical services in Schleswig-Holstein. While 27.5 % of the GPs had practices in rural areas, the share of GIM physicians was 14.5 % (p < 0.001). Home visits were performed by 97.8 % of the GPs and 93.2 % of the GIM physicians (p < 0.001). This difference was even more pronounced in rural areas (99.5 % vs. 94.1 % (p = 0.002)). Significant differences have also been found in the number of billed home visits. GPs made 36 % more home visits than GIM physicians. In rural areas, the difference was 60 %. Conclusion: The analysis revealed significant differences between GPs and GIM physicians regarding the type of region where they work, the application rate and the number of performed home visits. The findings could foster a discussion about how GIM physicians can be better prepared to provide primary care, especially in rural areas.

No abstract