Objectives Health and social care systems, organisations and providers are under pressure to organise care around patients’ needs with constrained resources. To implement patient-centred care (PCC) successfully, barriers must be addressed. Up to now, there has been a lack of comprehensive investigations on possible determinants of PCC across various health and social care organisations (HSCOs). Our qualitative study examines determinants of PCC implementation from decision makers’ perspectives across diverse HSCOs. Design Qualitative study of n=24 participants in n=20 semistructured face-to-face interviews conducted from August 2017 to May 2018. Setting and participants Decision makers were recruited from multiple HSCOs in the region of the city of Cologne, Germany, based on a maximum variation sampling strategy varying by HSCOs types. Outcomes The qualitative interviews were analysed using an inductive and deductive approach according to qualitative content analysis. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to conceptualise determinants of PCC. Results Decision makers identified similar determinants facilitating or obstructing the implementation of PCC in their organisational contexts. Several determinants at the HSCO’s inner setting and the individual level (eg, communication among staff and well-being of employees) were identified as crucial to overcome constrained financial, human and material resources in order to deliver PCC. Conclusions The results can help to foster the implementation of PCC in various HSCOs contexts. We identified possible starting points for initiating the tailoring of interventions and implementation strategies and the redesign of HSCOs towards more patient-centredness.

Objectives Previous studies on patient-centred care (PCC) and its facilitators and barriers usually considered specific patient groups, healthcare settings and aspects of PCC or focused on expert perspectives. The objective of this study was to analyse patients’ perspectives of facilitators and barriers towards implementing PCC. Design We conducted semistructured individual interviews with chronically ill patients. The interviewees were encouraged to share positive and negative experiences of care and the related facilitators and barriers in all settings including preventive, acute and chronic health issues. Interview data were analysed based on the concept of content analysis. Setting Interviews took place at the University Hospital Cologne, nursing homes, at participants’ homes or by telephone. Participants Any person with at least one chronic illness living in the region of Cologne was eligible for participation. 25 persons with an average age of 60 years participated in the interviews. The participants suffered from various chronic conditions including mental health problems, oncological, metabolic, neurological diseases, but also shared experiences related to acute health issues. Results Participants described facilitators and barriers of PCC on the microlevel (eg, patient–provider interaction), mesolevel (eg, health and social care organisation, HSCO) and macrolevel (eg, laws, financing). In addition to previous concepts, interviewees illustrated the importance of being an active patient by taking individual responsibility for health. Interviewees considered functioning teams and healthy staff members a facilitator of PCC as this can compensate stressful situations or lack of staff to some degree. A lack of transparency in financing and reimbursement was identified as barrier to PCC. Conclusion Individual providers and HSCOs can address many facilitators and barriers of PCC as perceived by patients. Large-scale changes such as reduction of administrative barriers, the expansion of care networks or higher mandatory nurse to patient ratios require political action and incentives. Trial registration number DRKS00011925

Aim: In light of the dynamic developments and consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic for the care of people in need of long-term care the following questions arise: How do leaders of care facilities perceive the challenges, how burdened are they and how do they cope with these? Methods: Leaders from outpatient and inpatient nursing and hospice care facilities were contacted by e-mail to participate in an online survey. Closed questions were analysed descriptively, open information was analysed by content analysis. Results: From of 4,333 nursing facilities contacted, usable information was available from 525 persons. The greatest pandemic-related, interdependent challenges include concern about infections of patients and employees, procurement of protective equipment, compliance with hygiene regulations, inconsistency and lack of transparency of information and guidelines that are important for work, and loss of income and lead to a cascade of burdens. Around 40 % of respondents are uncertain whether they can cope with these. According to the respondents. the well-being and presenteeism of the leaders surveyed has deteriorated in the course of the pandemic outbreak and they appeared to be more often ill at work. Financial and structural measures, the strengthening of social cohesion and explanation were mentioned as coping strategies. Conclusions: The results show an increase in challenges and illustrate interdependent pandemic-related burdens. These are mainly met by overtime and additional effort. especially on the part of leaders. It remains unclear what long-term consequences are to be expected from the burden situation.

Background: In highly segmented and complex healthcare organizations social capital is assumed to be of high relevance for the coordination of tasks in healthcare. So far, comprehensively validated instruments on social capital in healthcare organizations are lacking. The aim of this work is to validate an instrument measuring social capital in healthcare organizations. Methods: This validation study is based on a cross-sectional survey of 1050 hospital employees from 49 German hospitals which specialize in breast cancer care. Social capital was assessed by a six-item scale. Reliability analyses and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to determine the content validity of items within the theory-driven one-dimensional scale structure. The scale’s associations with measures of the social aspects of the work environment (identification, social support, open communication climate) were estimated to test convergent validity. Criterion-related validity was evaluated by conducting structural equation modelling to examine the predictive validity of the scale with measures of work engagement, well-being and burnout. Results: A one-dimensional structure of the instrument could be identified (CFI = .99; RMSEA = .06). Convergent validity was shown by hypothesis-consistent correlations with social support offered by supervisors and colleagues, a climate of open communication, and employee commitment to the organization. Criterion-related validity of the social capital scale was proved by its prediction of employee work engagement (R² = .10–.13 for the three subscales), well-being (R² = .13), and burnout (R² = .06–.11 for the three subscales). Conclusions: The confirmed associations between social capital and work engagement, burnout as well as well-being stress the importance of social capital as a vital resource for employee health and performance in healthcare organizations. In healthcare organizations this short instrument can be used as an efficient instrument to measure the organizations’ social capital.

Objectives: The healthcare system is characterised by a high degree of complexity and involves various actors at different institutional levels and in different care contexts. To implement patient-centred care (PCC) successfully, a multidimensional consideration of influencing factors is required. Our qualitative study aims to identify system-level determinants of PCC implementation from the perspective of different health and social care organisations (HSCOs). Design: A qualitative study using n=20 semistructured face-to-face interviews with n=24 participants was carried out between August 2017 and May 2018. Interview data were analysed based on concepts of qualitative content analysis using an inductive and deductive approach. Setting and participants: Interviews were conducted with clinical and managerial decision makers from multiple HSCOs in the model region of Cologne, Germany. Participants were recruited via networks of practice partners and cold calling. Results: This study identified various determinants on the system level that are associated with PCC implementation. Decision makers described external regulations as generating an economically controlled alignment of the healthcare system. The availability and qualification of staff resources and patient-related incentives of financial resources were identified as an eminent requirement for providers to deliver PCC. Participants considered the strict separation of financing and delivery of healthcare into inpatient and outpatient sectors to be a barrier to PCC. Interorganisational collaboration and information exchange were identified as facilitators of PCC, as they enable continuous patient care cycles. Conclusion: The results showed the necessity of enforcing paradigm changes at the system level from disease-centredness to patient-centredness while aligning policy and reimbursement decisions directly with patient needs and values. A systematic, long-term planned strategy that extends across all organisations is lacking, rather each organisation seeks its own possibilities to implement PCC activities under external restrictions. Trial registration number DRKS00011925

Background: Educational disparities in health and health behaviours have always been relevant in public health research and are particularly challenging in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. First studies suggest that factors important for the containment of the COVID-19 pandemic, such as prevention behaviour, risk perception, perceived effectiveness of containment measures, and trust in authorities handling the pandemic, vary by educational status. This study builds on recent debate by examining trends in absolute and relative educational disparities in these factors in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. Methods: Data stem from four waves of the GESIS Panel surveyed between March and October 2020 in Germany (15,902 observations from 4,690 individuals). Trends in absolute and relative disparities were examined for preventive behaviour, risk perception, perceived effectiveness of COVID-19 containment measures, and trust in individuals and institutions handling the COVID-19 pandemic by educational status using sex, age, residence, nationality, children under 16 living in household, family status, household size, the Big Five Inventory, and income class as control factors. Descriptive statistics as well as unadjusted and adjusted linear regression models and random effects models were performed. Results: We observed an initially rising and then falling trend in preventive behaviour with consistent and significant absolute and relative disparities with a lower preventive behaviour among low educated individuals. Indication of a U-shaped trend with consistent significantly lower values among lower educated individuals was found for risk perception, whereas perceived effectiveness and trust decreased significantly over time but did not significantly vary by educational status. Conclusions: Results indicate persistent educational disparities in preventive behaviour and risk perception and a general decline in perceived effectiveness and trust in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. To address this overall downward trend and existing disparities, comprehensive and strategic management is needed to communicate the risks of the pandemic and the benefits of COVID-19 containment measures. Both must be adapted to the different needs of educational groups in particular in order to overcome gaps in preventive behaviour and risk perception by educational status.