Purpose: Sepsis suspicion by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) is associated with improved patient outcomes. This study assessed sepsis incidence and recognition by EMS and analyzed which of the screening tools recommended by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign best facilitates sepsis prediction. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of claims data from health insurances (n = 221,429 EMS cases), and paramedics’ and emergency physicians’ EMS documentation (n = 110,419); analyzed outcomes were: sepsis incidence and case fatality compared to stroke and myocardial infarction, the extent of documentation for screening-relevant variables and sepsis suspicion, tools’ intersections for screening positive in identical EMS cases and their predictive ability for an inpatient sepsis diagnosis. Results: Incidence of sepsis (1.6%) was similar to myocardial infarction (2.6%) and stroke (2.7%); however, 30-day case fatality rate was almost threefold higher (31.7% vs. 13.4%; 11.8%). Complete vital sign documentation was achieved in 8.2% of all cases. Paramedics never, emergency physicians rarely (0.1%) documented a sepsis suspicion, respectively septic shock. NEWS2 had the highest sensitivity (73.1%; Specificity:81.6%) compared to qSOFA (23.1%; Sp:96.6%), SIRS (28.2%; Sp:94.3%) and MEWS (48.7%; Sp:88.1%). Depending on the tool, 3.7% to 19.4% of all cases screened positive; only 0.8% in all tools simultaneously. Conclusion: Incidence and mortality underline the need for better sepsis awareness, documentation of vital signs and use of screening tools. Guidelines may omit MEWS and SIRS as recommendations for prehospital providers since they were inferior in all accuracy measures. Though no tool performed ideally, NEWS2 qualifies as the best tool to predict the highest proportion of septic patients and to rule out cases that are likely non-septic.

In Germany, the patient himself makes the choice for or against a health service provider. Hospital comparison websites offer him possibilities to inform himself before choosing. However, it remains unclear, how health care consumers use those websites, and there is little information about how preferences in hospital choice differ interpersonally. We conducted a Discrete-Choice-Experiment (DCE) on hospital choice with 1500 randomly selected participants (age 40-70) in three different German cities selecting four attributes for hospital vignettes. The analysis of the study draws on multilevel mixed effects logit regression analyses with the dependent variables: "chance to select a hospital" and "choice confidence". Subsequently, we performed a Latent-Class-Analysis to uncover consumer segments with distinct preferences. 590 of the questionnaires were evaluable. All four attributes of the hospital vignettes have a significant impact on hospital choice. The attribute "complication rate" exerts the highest impact on consumers' decisions and reported choice confidence. Latent-Class-Analysis results in one dominant consumer segment that considered the complication rate the most important decision criterion. Using DCE, we were able to show that the complication rate is an important trusted criterion in hospital choice to a large group of consumers. Our study supports current governmental efforts in Germany to concentrate the provision of specialized health care services. We suggest further national and cross-national research on the topic.

In 2012 the age-standardized acute myocardial infarction (AMI) mortality rate was in the federal state Saxony-Anhalt 67 deaths per 100.000 whereas in Germany the AMI-rate was 47 deaths per 100.000. The rate in Saxony-Anhalt was therefore 43 % above the national average. Many factors may explain this above-average AMI mortality rate: First, the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors (e.g. arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus, smoking) in Saxony-Anhalt is the highest among all the Federal States of Germany. Second, structural health care for patients with AMI is potentially deficient (e.g. insufficient number of percutaneous coronary intervention-centers or deficits in the pre-hospital logistics of care). Third, the pre- and in-hospital process quality of health care for patients with AMI is possibly insufficient (e.g. time to reperfusion therapy). In July 2013 we established the regional myocardial infarction registry of Saxony-Anhalt (Regionales Herzinfarktregister in Sachsen-Anhalt, RHESA). RHESA is a population-based registry in the eastern part of Germany. Aims of RHESA are to calculate the AMI morbidity and mortality rates. Furthermore we study the factors that may potentially influence these rates in Saxony-Anhalt. RHESA is a population-based registry of patients with fatal or non-fatal AMI that was established in July 2013. The registry population comprises inhabitants aged 25 years or more of the city of Halle (Saale) (n = 179.000) and inhabitants of the rural district Altmark (n = 165.000) in the federal state Saxony-Anhalt, Germany. The main objectives of RHESA are to provide detailed estimates of the burden of AMI in Saxony-Anhalt which is the federal state with the highest AMI mortality rate in Germany and to investigate factors that influence morbidity and mortality rates due to AMI. Data collected in RHESA enable us to assess different levels of quality of health care of patients with AMI (structural, process and outcome). RHESA provides for the first time estimates of the burden of AMI in Saxony-Anhalt, and therefore contributes considerably to an improvement of the German Health Monitoring that strives for a more valid extrapolation of the nationwide morbidity and mortality rates of AMI.

The HOME^ONE study is part of the larger HOME project, which aims to provide evidence of diagnostic and therapeutic yield (“change of management”) of a patient-controlled portable EEG device with dry electrodes for the purposes of EEG home-monitoring neurological outpatients. The HOME^ONE study is the first step in the process of investigating whether outpatient EEG home-monitoring changes the diagnosis and treatment of patients in comparison to conventional EEG (“change of management”). Both EEG devices (conventional and portable) will be systematically compared via a two-phase intra-individual assessment. In the first phase (pilot study phase), both EEG devices will be used within neurologist practices (all other things being equal). This pilot study (involving 130 patients) will evaluate the technical usability and efficacy of the new portable dry electrode EEG recorder in comparison to conventional EEG devices. Judgements will be based on technical assessments and EEG record examinations of private practitioners and two experienced neurologists (percent of concordant readings and kappa values). The second phase (feasibility study phase) aims to assess patients’ acceptability and feasibility of the EEG home-monitoring and will provide insights into the extent diagnostic and therapeutic yields can be expected. For this purpose, a conventional EEG will be recorded in neurologist practices. Thereafter, the practice staff will instruct the patients on how the portable EEG device functions. The patients will subsequently use the devices in their home environment. The evaluation will compare the before and after documented diagnostic findings and the therapeutic consequences of the private practitioners with those of two experienced neurologists. To the best of our knowledge, this will be the first study of its kind to examine new approaches to diagnosing unclear consciousness disorders or other disorders of the CNS or the cardiovascular system through the use of a patient-controlled portable EEG device with dry electrodes for the purpose of home-monitoring neurological outpatients. If the two phases of the HOME^ONE study provide sufficient evidence of diagnostic and therapeutic yields, this would justify (indication-specific) full-scale randomized controlled trials or observational studies. DRKS DRKS00012685. Registered 9 August 2017, retrospectively registered.

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.