Zeitschrift für ärztliche Fortbildung und Qualitätssicherung
-
Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich · Jan 2007
Shared decision-making in Canada: update, challenges and where next!
There is considerable interest for shared decision-making (SDM) within the Canadian healthcare system. The current state of SDM in Canada and challenges with implementation are addressed in the paper at three levels of patient involvement: (1) healthcare system (macro-level); (2) institutions (meso-level) and (3) clinical/medical encounter (micro-level). ⋯ The virtue of SDM has gained recognition through increased research funding, medical training and some initiatives embedding patient decision aids within the process of care. Future perspectives of SDM in Canada are highlighted such as evaluation of the long-term impact of and costs associated with patient participation in decisions as well as interprofessional approaches to SDM.
-
Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich · Jan 2007
Shared decision-making in the Netherlands--current state and future perspectives.
Dutch government policy is aimed at introducing regulated competition among health care providers and among health care insurers and at empowering patients for being involved in decision-making in health care. Along with this, many Dutch organisations have been created to foster patient orientation within health care and increase patients' power for medical decision-making. The challenge is to deliver reliable and well-balanced information for patients and the public, eg. in patient-tailored web-based formats. ⋯ The theme of patient participation in medical decision making is a fairly widespread research topic theme in the Netherlands, including mutual exchange among the researchers in a vivid network. The real bottleneck is perhaps the implementation of patient participation into professional practice. Some recommendations for facilitating a change are made.
-
Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich · Jan 2007
[Limitations to the physician's discretionary and therapeutic freedom and to the provision of health care for the general population by a shortage of financial and human resources--the rules of Section 2 Para. 1 and 4 of the Medical Professional Code of conduct and how much they are really worth].
Up to the early 1990's the health care system was essentially characterised through:--the insured' right of choice of therapist,--therapeutic freedom of patients and physicians, and--the freedom of establishment for medical doctors.--In accordance with the Hospital Funding Act the hospital system was--in compliance with federal constitutional law using capacity requirements--based on the "fire-fighting" principle, i.e. that if required, every patient should have access to a suitable hospital bed within about 15 minutes.--The responsibility for ensuring the provision of general and specialist health care services had been conferred by the government to the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (1955) in the legal form of a public corporation. In the face of a foreseeable rise in expenses as a result of advances in medicine and a higher demand for health care services because of the demographic development (long-life society) the Advisory Council for Concerted Action in Health Care concludes in its Annual Report that maintaining this level of health care for all people is not financially viable any longer. This is why the state--on the basis of the Health Care Reform Act of 2002 and the Statutory Health Insurance System Modernisation Act of 2004--retreated from the provision of services in the ambulatory and inpatient setting by privatising these sectors and by proclaiming competition (introduction of diagnosis-related groups). ⋯ With regard to the assessment of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures the Joint Federal Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, G-BA) in the summer of 2005 gave itself a Code of Procedures that defines uniform cross-sector criteria for the appraisal of diagnosis and treatment. In Germany the principle of evidence-based health care has by law--and this is unique as compared to other countries--fully penetrated everyday health care where the decisions of the Joint Federal Committee in the form of directives have mandatory effect for health care providers and hence for the insured, too. This is why the German Medical Association and the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians have embarked on the implementation of the "National Programme for Disease Management Guidelines" and the "Health Services Research" Project as a means of continuously evaluating health care provision which are intended to guide the future political control of the system of statutory health insurance in terms of target-performance comparisons and for the purpose of identifying health care deficits.
-
Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich · Jan 2007
[Can rationing be fair? Ethical considerations regarding justice in the healthcare system].
While economy tries to solve the problem of scarcity by rationing, i.e. increasing efficiency, ethics reflect the path of the just distribution of scarce goods, necessarily including the means of transparent and fair rationing. But how can such rationing be realised in a healthcare system? Non-medical criteria such as the patient's social function or age, though vividly discussed, are inappropriate. ⋯ The QALY and DALY models are such an attempt. Careful reflection of these measures of quality of life and, in some aspects, accompanying rules to avoid extreme unfairness will be critical to their success.
-
Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich · Jan 2007
[Social security law and evidence-based health care in Germany].
The present contribution examines whether German Social Security Law requires or allows the German health care system to follow the principles of evidence-based health care. The discussion will be based on the relevant example of statutory health insurance (Book of Social Code V-SGB V). According to Sect. 2 SGB V health care provision has to follow medical standards, acknowledging medical progress. ⋯ The Federal Social Court (Bundessozialgericht, BSG) decided that the decisions of the G-BA could not be challenged for being medically incorrect. In 2005, the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht-BVerfG) decided that a stricter control over the G-BA by the social courts was needed and that in the case of serious disease a lower evidence level might be sufficient. BSG and G-BA will continue to accept the results and methods of Evidence-based Medicine.