Providing health care for older adults with multimorbidity is often complex, challenging, and prone to fragmentation. Although clinical decision making should take into account treatment interactions, individual burden, and resources, current approaches to assessing quality of care mostly rely on indicators for single conditions. The aim of this project was to develop a set of generic quality indicators for the management of patients aged 65 and older with multimorbidity that can be used in both health care research and clinical practice. Based on the findings of a systematic literature review and eight focus groups with patients with multimorbidity and their family members, we developed candidate indicators. Identified aspects of quality were mapped to core domains of health care to obtain a guiding framework for quality-of-care assessment. Using nominal group technique, indicators were rated by a multidisciplinary expert panel (n = 23) following standardized criteria. We derived 47 candidate quality indicators from the literature and 4 additional indicators from the results of the focus groups. The expert panel selected a set of 25 indicators, which can be assigned to the levels of patient factors, patient–provider communication, and context and organizational structures of the conceptual framework. We developed a comprehensive indicator set for the management of multimorbidity that can help to highlight areas with potential for improving the quality of care and support application of multimorbidity guidelines. Furthermore, this study may serve as a blueprint for participatory designs in the development of quality indicators.

Traumatic events like critical illness and intensive care are threats to life and bodily integrity and pose a risk factor for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). PTSD affects the quality of life and morbidity and may increase health-care costs. Limited access to specialist care results in PTSD patients being treated in primary care settings. Narrative exposure therapy (NET) is based on the principles of cognitive behavioral therapy and has shown positive effects when delivered by health-care professionals other than psychologists. The primary aims of the PICTURE trial (from “PTSD after ICU survival”) are to investigate the effectiveness and applicability of NET adapted for primary care with case management in adults diagnosed with PTSD after intensive care. This is an investigator-initiated, multi-center, primary care-based, randomized controlled two-arm parallel group, observer-blinded superiority trial conducted throughout Germany. In total, 340 adult patients with a total score of at least 20 points on the posttraumatic diagnostic scale (PDS-5) 3 months after receiving intensive care treatment will be equally randomized to two groups: NET combined with case management and improved treatment as usual (iTAU). All primary care physicians (PCPs) involved will be instructed in the diagnosis and treatment of PTSD according to current German guidelines. PCPs in the iTAU group will deliver usual care during three consultations. In the experimental group, PCPs will additionally be trained to deliver an adapted version of NET (three sessions) supported by phone-based case management by a medical assistant. At 6 and 12 months after randomization, structured blinded telephone interviews will assess patient-reported outcomes. The primary composite endpoint is the absolute change from baseline at month 6 in PTSD symptom severity measured by the PDS-5 total score, which also incorporates the death of any study patients. Secondary outcomes cover the domains depression, anxiety, disability, health-related quality-of-life, and cost-effectiveness. The principal analysis is by intention to treat. If the superiority of the experimental intervention over usual care can be demonstrated, the combination of brief NET and case management could be a treatment option to relieve PTSD-related symptoms and to improve primary care after intensive care. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03315390 . Registered on 10 October 2017. German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00012589 . Registered on 17 October 2017.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to analyze and describe process and outcomes of two pilot assessments based on the HTA Core Model, discuss the applicability of the model, and explore areas of development. Methods: Data were gathered from HTA Core Model and pilot Core HTA documents, their validation feedback, questionnaires to investigators, meeting minutes, emails, and discussions in the coordinating team meetings in the Finnish Office for Health Technology Assessment (FINOHTA). Results: The elementary structure of the HTA Core Model proved useful in preparing HTAs. Clear scoping and good coordination in timing and distribution of work would probably help improve applicability and avoid duplication of work. Conclusions: The HTA Core Model can be developed into a platform that enables and encourages true HTA collaboration in terms of distribution of work and maximum utilization of a common pool of structured HTA information for national HTA reports.

Initiatives such as “Choosing Wisely” in the USA and “Smarter Medicine” in Switzerland have published lists of widely overused health care services. The German initiative “Choosing Wisely Together (Gemeinsam Klug Entscheiden)” follows this example. The goal of our study was to prioritize important recommendations against the overuse and underuse of health care services. The final list of recommendations will be published in the German guideline “Protection against the overuse and underuse of health care”. First, a multidisciplinary expert panel established a catalogue of prioritization criteria. Second, we extracted all the recommendations from evidence- and consensus-based German College of General Practice and Family Medicine (DEGAM) guidelines and National Health Care Guidelines (NVL). Third, the recommendations were rated by two independent panels (general practitioners and other health care professionals involved/not involved in guideline development). The prioritization process was finalized in a consensus conference held by DEGAM’s Standing Guideline Committee (SLK). Eleven prioritization criteria were established. A total of 782 recommendations were extracted and rated by 98 physicians and other health care professionals in a survey. In the voting process, more than 80% of the recommendations were eliminated. After the final consensus conference, twelve recommendations from DEGAM guidelines, nine DEGAM addenda and 17 NVL recommendations were chosen for inclusion in the guideline, for a total of 38 recommendations. The selection procedure proved helpful in identifying the highest priority recommendations with which to combat the overuse and underuse of health care services. To date, in Germany there has been no attempt to compile such a list by using a systematic and transparent methodology. Hence, the guideline that results from this process can fill an important gap.

Conventional Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is usually conducted at a point in time at which the development of the respective technology may no longer be influenced. By this time developers and/or purchasers may have misinvested resources. Thus the demand for Technology Assessment (TA) which incorporates appropriate methods during early development stages of a technology becomes apparent. Against this health political background, the present report describes methods for a development-accompanying assessment of innovative medical technologies. Furthermore, international research programmes set out to identify or apply such methods will be outlined. A systematic literature search as well as an extensive manual literature search are carried out in order to obtain literature and information. The greatest units of the identified methods consist of assessment concepts, decision support methods, modelling approaches and methods focusing on users and their knowledge. Additionally, several general-purpose concepts have been identified. The identified research programmes INNO-HTA and MATCH (Multidisciplinary-Assessment-of-Technology-Centre-for-Healthcare) are to be seen as pilot projects which so far have not been able to generate final results. MATCH focuses almost entirely on the incorporation of the user-perspective regarding the development of non-pharmaceutical technologies, whereas INNO-HTA is basically concerned with the identification and possible advancement of methods for the early, socially-oriented technology assessment. Most references offer only very vague descriptions of the respective method and the application of greatly differing methods seldom exceeds the character of a pilot implementation. A standardisation much less an institutionalisation of development-accompanying assessment cannot be recognized. It must be noted that there is no singular method with which development-accompanying assessment should be carried out. Instead, a technology and evaluation specific method selection seem to be necessary as medical innovations are diverse and none of the methods are exhaustive. Because of a variety of issues (e. g. ideal time of evaluation, lack of data and uncertainty of data) a development-accompanying assessment should not replace a comprehensive HTA, but rather form a possible preceding step in a multi-staged HTA-process. A final appraisal of the methods for development-accompanying assessment cannot be made based on the available sources. However, the present review may serve as a starting point for further development and application of these methods as well as further examination of the concept of development-accompanying assessment. There is a substantial need for further research concerning the application, validation and comparison of the various methods for development-accompanying assessment.

Background: Older adults with multimorbidity represent a growing segment of the population. Metrics to assess quality, safety and effectiveness of care can support policy makers and healthcare providers in addressing patient needs. However, there is a lack of valid measures of quality of care for this population. In the MULTIqual project, 24 general practitioner (GP)-reported and 14 patient-reported quality indicators for the healthcare of older adults with multimorbidity were developed in Germany in a systematic approach. This study aimed to select, validate and pilot core sets of these indicators. Methods: In a cross-sectional observational study, we collected data in general practices (n = 35) and patients aged 65 years and older with three or more chronic conditions (n = 346). One-dimensional core sets for both perspectives were selected by stepwise backward selection based on corrected item-total correlations. We established structural validity, discriminative capacity, feasibility and patient-professional agreement for the selected indicators. Multilevel multivariable linear regression models adjusted for random effects at practice level were calculated to examine construct validity. Results: Twelve GP-reported and seven patient-reported indicators were selected, with item-total correlations ranging from 0.332 to 0.576. Fulfilment rates ranged from 24.6 to 89.0%. Between 0 and 12.7% of the values were missing. Seventeen indicators had agreement rates between patients and professionals of 24.1% to 75.9% and one had 90.7% positive and 5.1% negative agreement. Patients who were born abroad (− 1.04, 95% CI = − 2.00/ − 0.08, p = 0.033) and had higher health-related quality of life (− 1.37, 95% CI = − 2.39/ − 0.36, p = 0.008), fewer contacts with their GP (0.14, 95% CI = 0.04/0.23, p = 0.007) and lower willingness to use their GPs as coordinators of their care (0.13, 95% CI = 0.06/0.20, p < 0.001) were more likely to have lower GP-reported healthcare quality scores. Patients who had fewer GP contacts (0.12, 95% CI = 0.04/0.20, p = 0.002) and were less willing to use their GP to coordinate their care (0.16, 95% CI = 0.10/0.21, p < 0.001) were more likely to have lower patient-reported healthcare quality scores. Conclusions: The quality indicator core sets are the first brief measurement tools specifically designed to assess quality of care for patients with multimorbidity. The indicators can facilitate implementation of treatment standards and offer viable alternatives to the current practice of combining disease-related metrics with poor applicability to patients with multimorbidity.