[Does the Innovation Fund Improve Healthcare Provision? A Critical Assessment of the Status of Implementing Successful Innovation Fund Projects into Healthcare Practice].

IF 0.7 4区 医学 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Gesundheitswesen Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-16 DOI:10.1055/a-2270-3537
Christina Lindemann, Michaela Schunk, Laura Keßler, Thomas Bierbaum, Michael Eichinger, Erik Farin-Glattacker, Max Geraedts, Martin Härter, Heike Heytens, Andreas Meusch, Olaf Schoffer, Neeltje van den Berg, Horst Christian Vollmar, Milena von Kutzleben, Wolfgang Hoffmann, Jochen Schmitt
{"title":"[Does the Innovation Fund Improve Healthcare Provision? A Critical Assessment of the Status of Implementing Successful Innovation Fund Projects into Healthcare Practice].","authors":"Christina Lindemann, Michaela Schunk, Laura Keßler, Thomas Bierbaum, Michael Eichinger, Erik Farin-Glattacker, Max Geraedts, Martin Härter, Heike Heytens, Andreas Meusch, Olaf Schoffer, Neeltje van den Berg, Horst Christian Vollmar, Milena von Kutzleben, Wolfgang Hoffmann, Jochen Schmitt","doi":"10.1055/a-2270-3537","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Since 2015, the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA)'s Innovation Fund has been supporting projects in health services research and new health service models (\"Neue Versorgungsformen\", NVF). By the end of 2022, 211 projects in the NVF category had been funded. A key objective is the transfer of successful projects into standard care. This article analyzes previous projects regarding their incorporation into routine care based on transfer recommendations of the Innovation Fund Committee (\"Innovationsausschuss\" IA).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Descriptive analysis of all projects completed by August 1, 2023 with transfer recommendations in the \"NVF\" funding stream. Presentation by topic, project duration, time until IA transfer decision, categorization, and number of institutions and organizations (recipients) addressed per project, their feedback published on the G-BA website, response rates per recipient group, and a content classification and interpretation of exemplary feedback. Recommendations based on the results and their discussion in an expert workshop.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 57 NVF projects, 17 had a transfer recommendation. A total of 57 feedback responses were received from a total of 431 recipients addressed by the IA across these projects. Response rates varied significantly. One-third of inquiries to the G-BA and its member organizations received a response (31%), while only every fifth inquiry to federal states (18%) and professional societies (18%) got a response. Less than one in ten inquiries to the Federal Ministry of Health (8%), administrative bodies (6%), and the German Medical Association (0%) received a response. Project-specific feedback within a recipient group was often contradictory or limited to regional scope.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>The transfer process reveals significant structural and procedural obstacles regarding the incorporation of projects evaluated as successful into routine health care. To ensure that funding from the innovation fund is most effectively used, there needs to be a realistic chance of successful transfer of positive project outcomes into routine care. The DNVF recommends stronger involvement of rule-competent institutions, mandatory publication of responses, structured moderation of the transfer process, expanding types of selective contracts, financing of implementation phases and of studies drawing on results across successful NVF projects.</p>","PeriodicalId":47653,"journal":{"name":"Gesundheitswesen","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gesundheitswesen","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2270-3537","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Since 2015, the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA)'s Innovation Fund has been supporting projects in health services research and new health service models ("Neue Versorgungsformen", NVF). By the end of 2022, 211 projects in the NVF category had been funded. A key objective is the transfer of successful projects into standard care. This article analyzes previous projects regarding their incorporation into routine care based on transfer recommendations of the Innovation Fund Committee ("Innovationsausschuss" IA).

Method: Descriptive analysis of all projects completed by August 1, 2023 with transfer recommendations in the "NVF" funding stream. Presentation by topic, project duration, time until IA transfer decision, categorization, and number of institutions and organizations (recipients) addressed per project, their feedback published on the G-BA website, response rates per recipient group, and a content classification and interpretation of exemplary feedback. Recommendations based on the results and their discussion in an expert workshop.

Results: Out of 57 NVF projects, 17 had a transfer recommendation. A total of 57 feedback responses were received from a total of 431 recipients addressed by the IA across these projects. Response rates varied significantly. One-third of inquiries to the G-BA and its member organizations received a response (31%), while only every fifth inquiry to federal states (18%) and professional societies (18%) got a response. Less than one in ten inquiries to the Federal Ministry of Health (8%), administrative bodies (6%), and the German Medical Association (0%) received a response. Project-specific feedback within a recipient group was often contradictory or limited to regional scope.

Discussion and conclusion: The transfer process reveals significant structural and procedural obstacles regarding the incorporation of projects evaluated as successful into routine health care. To ensure that funding from the innovation fund is most effectively used, there needs to be a realistic chance of successful transfer of positive project outcomes into routine care. The DNVF recommends stronger involvement of rule-competent institutions, mandatory publication of responses, structured moderation of the transfer process, expanding types of selective contracts, financing of implementation phases and of studies drawing on results across successful NVF projects.

创新基金能否改善医疗保健?对医疗保健实践中成功创新基金项目实施情况的批判性审查。
导言:自 2015 年以来,联邦联合委员会(G-BA)的创新基金一直在支持医疗服务研究和新医疗服务模式("Neue Versorgungsformen",NVF)方面的项目。截至 2022 年底,共有 211 个 NVF 类项目获得了资助。其主要目标是将成功的项目转化为标准医疗服务。本文根据创新基金委员会("Innovationsausschuss "IA)提出的转移建议,对以往项目纳入常规护理的情况进行了分析:方法:对 2023 年 8 月 1 日前完成的所有项目进行描述性分析,并在 "NVF "资金流中提出转移建议。按项目主题、项目持续时间、距 IA 做出转移决定的时间、分类、每个项目所涉及的机构和组织(接受者)的数量、在 G-BA 网站上公布的他们的反馈意见、每个接受者群体的回复率、以及对示范性反馈意见的内容分类和解释进行介绍。根据结果提出建议,并在专家研讨会上进行讨论:在 57 个国家自愿基金项目中,有 17 个项目获得了转让建议。在这些项目中,执行机构共收到来自 431 个受援国的 57 份反馈答复。答复率差异很大。向全球生物多样性局及其成员组织提出的询问有三分之一得到了答复(31%),而向联邦各州(18%)和专业协会(18%)提出的询问只有五分之一得到了答复。在向联邦卫生部(8%)、行政机构(6%)和德国医学会(0%)提出的询问中,只有不到十分之一的询问得到了回复。受援团体内部针对具体项目的反馈意见往往相互矛盾或仅限于地区范围:转让过程显示,在将被评估为成功的项目纳入常规医疗保健方面,存在严重的结构性和程序性障碍。为了确保创新基金的资金得到最有效的利用,需要有现实的机会将积极的项目成果成功转化为常规医疗服务。DNVF 建议加强有章可循的机构的参与,强制公布答复,对转移过程进行结构性调节,扩大选择性合同的类型,为实施阶段和借鉴成功的 NVF 项目成果的研究提供资金。
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
Gesundheitswesen
Gesundheitswesen PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
18.20%
发文量
308
期刊介绍: The health service informs you comprehensively and up-to-date about the most important topics of the health care system. In addition to guidelines, overviews and comments, you will find current research results and contributions to CME-certified continuing education and training. The journal offers a scientific discussion forum and a platform for communications from professional societies. The content quality is ensured by a publisher body, the expert advisory board and other experts in the peer review process.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信