Background: In recent years, healthcare has faced many different crises around the world such as HIV-, Ebola- or H1N1-outbrakes, opioid addiction, natural disasters and terrorism attacks). In particular, the current pandemic of Covid-19 has challenged the resilience of health systems. In many healthcare systems, primary care practices play a crucial role in the management of crises as they are often the first point of contact and main health care provider for patients. Therefore, this study explored which situations are perceived as crises by primary care practice teams and potential strategies for crisis management.Methods: A qualitative observational study was conducted. Data were collected in interviews and focus groups with experts from primary care practices and stakeholders focusing on primary care practices in Germany such as physicians, medical assistants, practice managers, quality managers, hygiene managers and institutions on health system level (politics, research and health insurance). All interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A qualitative content analysis was performed using a rapid qualitative analysis approach first, followed by a thematic analysis.Results: Two focus groups and 26 interviews including 40 participating experts were conducted. Many different situations were perceived as crises, varying from issues in the practice organization to problems on health system level and international disasters. Distinct aspects associated with the perception of a crisis situation by interviewees were the presence of emotional reactions, a need for organizational changes and a lack of necessary resources. A broad spectrum of possible strategies was discussed that could help to cope with or even prevent the emergence of an actual crisis. In particular, strengthening communication within practice teams and resilience among employees was perceived to be fundamental for improving responses to crises or preventing them.Conclusions: The study provides perspectives of primary health care workers on crises in health, that could inform health policy regarding prevention and management of future crises in primary care facilities.

The German healthcare system is responsible for 5,2% of the national emissions of greenhouse gases. Therefore, mitigation actions to reduce the carbon footprint are crucial. However, there have been few approaches to achieve this in German primary care. This study aimed to identify environmental impact-reducing strategies of German primary care practices. During the summer of 2021, a qualitative study was conducted using interviews and focus groups with experts in primary care across Germany, such as physicians, medical assistants, health scientists and experts on the health system level. Verbatim transcribed data were analyzed using Thematic Analysis. The sample comprised 26 individual interviews and two focus groups with a total of N = 40 participants. Findings provide a first overview of pursued mitigation strategies and contextual factors influencing their implementation. Strategies referred to the use of water and energy, recycling and waste management, supply chains and procurement, digitisation, mobility, patient care, behavioural changes and system level. Implementing sustainable actions in daily care was considered expensive and often unfeasible due to lack of staff, time and restrictive hygiene regulations. Participants called for more instruction on implementing mitigating actions, for example, through websites, podcasts, guidelines or quality indicators. This study's findings can support the development of future environmental impact-reducing strategies in primary care. Potential options for guidance and support should be considered to facilitate sustainability.

High continuity of care has a positive impact on health outcomes, but insight into the mechanisms underlying this impact is limited. Information continuity, on which our study focuses, is especially important when relational continuity is not given, which is often the case at hospital admission or hospital discharge. The aim of this study is to provide insight into the information flows between general practices and hospitals in Germany, and to identify factors associated with these flows of information. This is a qualitative interview study in a purposeful sample of staff from hospitals and general practices (general practitioners, care assistants in general practice, hospital management, hospital physicians, and nursing staff). Interviews were conducted via telephone or face-to-face using a self-developed semi-structured interview guide. Stepwise systematic content analysis was used to structure collected material into themes and sub-themes that related to the study aim. Data was analysed by two researchers in several cycles, alternating between inductive and deductive approaches. A total of 49 interviews were conducted. Duration of the interviews varies between 21 and 78 min (mean duration 43 min). Across all groups, more than two thirds of participants were female (n = 34, 69%). The analysis highlighted six interdependent main themes regarding factors that affect information flows between hospitals and general practices: organisational, legal, financial, patient factors, individual characteristics, and emotional & social factors. The latter theme emerged as particularly rich and was therefore divided into four subthemes: appreciation and understanding of the respective other, (intrinsic) motivation, socialisation, and relationships. Organised meetings and events were mentioned as strategies to address emotional and social factors. Digitalisation can facilitate information flows between care providers. However, knowing each other and good personal relations remain important for effective collaboration. Cooperation between all stakeholders is needed to aim to achieve continuity of care. Trial registration: DRKS00015183 on DRKS/ Universal Trial Number (UTN): U1111-1218–0992. Date of registration 23/08/2018.

Background: Climate change is seen as the biggest health threat of the twenty-first century. Making outpatient medical practices resilient is therefore crucial to protect vulnerable groups and maintain quality of care. Awareness is a precondition for action. This study aims to explore awareness (knowledge, experience and attention) of climate change adaptation among stakeholders of outpatient medical practices. Methods: Semi-structured interviews and focus groups with stakeholders of outpatient medical practices were conducted. The qualitative data were analysed in a two-step Thematic Analysis process. Results: In total, n = 40 stakeholders participated in two focus groups and 26 interviews. The findings show a mixed degree of awareness in outpatient medical practices. The spectrum ranged from a passive role with curative acting only, handing over responsibility to others and a low perceived self-efficacy to a proactive and responsible implementation of adaptation strategies. Participants who saw the need and responsibility of climate change adaptation in medical practices perceived low additional workload. In general, implementation of climate change adaptation measures and general awareness of climate change adaptation appeared to be depending on a certain tension for change and a higher self-efficacy. Conclusion: Medical practices, and specifically primary care, plays a crucial role in climate change adaptation, and awareness needs to be increased further in order to cope with consequences of climate change. To facilitate this, there should be a strong emphasis on climate change adaptation strategies being part of outpatient care provider roles rather than being perceived as an “add-on” to already high workloads.

Background: Mobile health (mHealth) interventions for self-management are a promising way to meet the needs of patients with chronic diseases in primary care practices. Therefore, an mHealth intervention, TelePraCMan, was developed and evaluated for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, high blood pressure, or heart failure in a German primary care setting. TelePraCMan entails a symptom diary, an appointment manager, a manager to document goals, and a warning system. The app should foster the self-management of participating patients. Objective: We aimed to examine the effects of TelePraCMan on patient activation and quality of life and explored the underlying contextual factors, impacts, and degree of implementation. Methods: In a prospective observational study design, we collected data by using interviews and written questionnaires from participating patients (intervention and control groups) and primary care workers (physicians and practice assistants). The primary outcomes of interest were patient-reported quality of life (12-Item Short Form Survey) and patient activation (patient activation measure). The quantitative analysis focused on differences between patients in the intervention and control groups, as well as before (T0) and after (T1) the intervention. Interviews were analyzed by using qualitative content analysis via MAXQDA (VERBI GmbH). Results: At baseline, 25 patients and 24 primary care workers completed the questionnaire, and 18 patients and 21 primary care workers completed the follow-up survey. The patients were predominantly male and, on average, aged 64 (SD 11) years (T0). The primary care workers were mostly female (62%) and, on average, aged 47 (SD 10) years (T0). No differences were observed in the outcomes before and after the intervention or between the intervention and control groups. In the additional interviews, 4 patients and 11 primary care workers were included. The interviewees perceived that the intervention was useful for some patients. However, contextual factors and problems with implementation activities negatively affected the use of the app with patients. The main reasons for the low participation were the COVID-19 pandemic and the target group, which seemed to have less interest in mHealth; the interviewees attributed this to the older age of patients. However, the respondents felt that the app would be better accepted in 5 or 10 years. Conclusions: Although the TelePraCMan app was rated as very good and important by the participants, few patients used it. The digital intervention was hardly implemented and had limited impact in the current setting of German primary care. Trial Registration: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00017320; https://tinyurl.com/4uwrzu85

Background: Reporting of adverse events is an important aspect of patient safety management in hospitals, which may help to prevent future adverse events. Yet, only a small proportion of such events is actually reported in German hospitals. Therefore, it is crucial to evaluate attitudes of clinical staff towards reporting of adverse events. The aim of this study was to translate the Reporting of Clinical Adverse Events Scale (RoCAES) developed by Wilson, Bekker and Fylan (2008) and validate it in a sample of German-speaking health professionals. Methods: The questionnaire covers five factors (perceived blame, perceived criteria for identifying events that should be reported, perceptions of colleagues’ expectations, perceived benefits of reporting, and perceived clarity of reporting procedures) and was translated into German language according to translation guidelines. Within a cross-sectional study in a sample of 120 health professionals in German hospitals, internal consistency (omega) and construct validity (confirmatory factor analysis) of the German scale RoCAES-D was assessed. Results: The reliability was high (omega = 0.87) and the factor analysis showed a poor model fit (RMSEA: 0.074, χ²/df: 1.663, TLI: 0.690). Resulting from lower model fit of the original model (RMSEA: 0.082, χ²/df: 1.804, TLI: 0.606), one item was deleted due to low factor loadings and a low R² (0.001), and two items were reallocated from the factor ‘perceived benefits’ to ‘perceived blame’. Conclusion: The successful translation and initial validation of the RoCAES-D might be a good starting point for further research. A cultural adaptation of the scale needs to be done to initiate a large-scale usage of the questionnaire.