Fostering clinical research in general practice and family medicine. Selected abstracts from the 93rd EGPRN conference Halle, Germany, 14–17 October 2021

{"title":"Fostering clinical research in general practice and family medicine. Selected abstracts from the 93rd EGPRN conference Halle, Germany, 14–17 October 2021","authors":"","doi":"10.1080/13814788.2023.2171393","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The topic of conducting clinical studies in the outpatient setting has been controversial for some time. This from a structural point of view on different levels. First, the question of which studies should be used is whether RCTs are preferred or whether it is better to collect real-world data to derive real-world evidence. Then on the organisational level. How should private practices be enabled to carry out studies of high quality and with the highest possible frequency? Feasibility currently correlates with a compara-tively high expenditure of time and personnel, which meets a thin personnel cover with only short treatment times for patients. Similarly, a strongly inhomogeneous IT landscape in practices, inhomogeneous organisational structures within the medical profession and professionally inhomogeneous guidelines, indicators, etc. are identified as obstacles to the implementation of studies. In addition, there is still a high wall between inpatient and outpatient care. This is an almost fatal situation because relevant and reli-able care data are collected daily but are rarely available for valid evaluation. The goal set out in the Geneva Declaration of sharing medical knowledge for patients ’ benefit and healthcare promotion will be difficult to achieve in its best form. However, another aspect is left out of the discussion. This is the increasing integration of innovative, sometimes disruptive changes in the healthcare market as part of the digital revo-lution, which also has the power to change the physician market permanently; this is entirely independent of the different designs and structures in the various healthcare sys- tems. In Germany, telemedicine, electronic patient files and electronic prescriptions are frequently mentioned, but these are no longer innovations; these tools have already been in use in other healthcare systems for a long time. However, they are indispensable for implementing further innovations, platforms and digital applications (digital printing, use of soft artificial intelligence, etc.). None of these innovations can do without accompanying evaluation and the discussion about reimbursement will always be decided","PeriodicalId":383035,"journal":{"name":"The European Journal of General Practice","volume":"110 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The European Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2023.2171393","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

The topic of conducting clinical studies in the outpatient setting has been controversial for some time. This from a structural point of view on different levels. First, the question of which studies should be used is whether RCTs are preferred or whether it is better to collect real-world data to derive real-world evidence. Then on the organisational level. How should private practices be enabled to carry out studies of high quality and with the highest possible frequency? Feasibility currently correlates with a compara-tively high expenditure of time and personnel, which meets a thin personnel cover with only short treatment times for patients. Similarly, a strongly inhomogeneous IT landscape in practices, inhomogeneous organisational structures within the medical profession and professionally inhomogeneous guidelines, indicators, etc. are identified as obstacles to the implementation of studies. In addition, there is still a high wall between inpatient and outpatient care. This is an almost fatal situation because relevant and reli-able care data are collected daily but are rarely available for valid evaluation. The goal set out in the Geneva Declaration of sharing medical knowledge for patients ’ benefit and healthcare promotion will be difficult to achieve in its best form. However, another aspect is left out of the discussion. This is the increasing integration of innovative, sometimes disruptive changes in the healthcare market as part of the digital revo-lution, which also has the power to change the physician market permanently; this is entirely independent of the different designs and structures in the various healthcare sys- tems. In Germany, telemedicine, electronic patient files and electronic prescriptions are frequently mentioned, but these are no longer innovations; these tools have already been in use in other healthcare systems for a long time. However, they are indispensable for implementing further innovations, platforms and digital applications (digital printing, use of soft artificial intelligence, etc.). None of these innovations can do without accompanying evaluation and the discussion about reimbursement will always be decided
促进全科医学和家庭医学的临床研究。第93届EGPRN会议精选摘要,德国哈雷,2021年10月14-17日
在门诊环境中进行临床研究的话题一直存在争议。这是从不同层次的结构角度来看的。首先,应该使用哪些研究的问题是rct是首选还是收集真实世界的数据来获得真实世界的证据更好。然后是组织层面。怎样才能使私人执业所进行高质素和尽可能频繁的研究?目前的可行性与相对较高的时间和人员支出相关,这满足了人员覆盖薄,患者治疗时间短的情况。同样,实践中的信息技术环境极不一致、医疗专业内部的组织结构不一致、专业准则、指标等也不一致,这些都被认为是实施研究的障碍。此外,在住院和门诊之间仍然有一堵高墙。这是一种几乎致命的情况,因为每天都收集相关和可靠的护理数据,但很少可用于有效评估。《日内瓦宣言》所确定的分享医学知识以造福患者和促进保健的目标将难以以最佳形式实现。然而,另一方面却被遗漏了。作为数字革命的一部分,医疗保健市场的创新(有时是颠覆性的)变化日益融合,这也有可能永久地改变医生市场;这是完全独立于不同的设计和结构在各种医疗保健系统。在德国,远程医疗、电子病历和电子处方经常被提及,但这些不再是创新;这些工具已经在其他医疗保健系统中使用了很长时间。然而,它们对于实现进一步的创新、平台和数字应用(数字印刷、软人工智能的使用等)是不可或缺的。这些创新都离不开伴随的评估和关于补偿的讨论
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信