Structural characteristics and contractual terms of specialist palliative homecare in Germany
Maximiliane Jansky,Lia Heyl,Michaela Hach,Steven Kranz,Thomas Lehmann,Antje Freytag,Ulrich Wedding,Winfried Meißner,Sabine H Krauss,Werner Schneider,Friedemann Nauck,SAVOIR Study Group,Anna Bauer,Bianka Ditscheid,Cornelia Eichhorn,Elke Gaser,Ulrike Hammer,Aicko Helbig,Beata Hennig,Michelle Kaufmann,Markus Krause,Isabel Kruschel,Helmut L'hoest,Srikanth Maddela,Ursula Marschall,Martial Mboulla,Heiner Melching,Florian Mühler,Cornelia Nageler,Sara Parhizkari,Judith Rothaug,Joachim Saam,Sven Schulz,Kathleen Stichling,Horst C Vollmar,Julia von Hayek
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-023-01274-6
2023-10-31
Abstract:Background: Multi-professional specialist palliative homecare (SPHC) teams care for palliative patients with complex symptoms. In Germany, the SPHC directive regulates care provision, but model contracts for each federal state are heterogeneous regarding staff requirements, cooperation with other healthcare providers, and financial reimbursement. The structural characteristics of SPHC teams also vary. Aim: We provide a structured overview of the existing model contracts, as well as a nationwide assessment of SPHC teams and their structural characteristics. Furthermore, we explore whether these characteristics serve to find specifc patterns of SPHC team models, based on empirical data. Methods: This study is part of the multi-methods research project "SAVOIR", funded by the German Innovations Fund. Most model contracts are publicly available. Structural characteristics (e.g. number, professions, and affiliations of team members, and external cooperation) were assessed via an online database ("Wegweiser Hospiz- und Palliativversorgung") based on voluntary information obtained from SPHC teams. All the data were updated by phone during the assessment process. Data were descriptively analysed regarding staff, cooperation requirements, and reimbursement schemes, while latent class analysis (LCA) was used to identify structural team models. Results: Model contracts have heterogeneous contract partners and terms related to staff requirements (number and qualifications) and cooperation with other services. Fourteen reimbursement schemes were available, all combining different payment models. Of the 283 SPHC teams, 196 provided structural characteristics. Teams reported between one and 298 members (mean: 30.3, median: 18), mainly nurses and physicians, while 37.8% had a psychosocial professional as a team member. Most teams were composed of nurses and physicians employed in different settings; for example, staff was employed by the team, in private practices/nursing services, or in hospitals. Latent class analysis identified four structural team models, based on the team size, team members' affiliation, and care organisation. Conclusion: Both the contractual terms and teams' structural characteristics vary substantially, and this must be considered when analysing patient data from SPHC. The identified patterns of team models can form a starting point from which to analyse different forms of care provision and their impact on care quality.