TY - JOUR A1 - Hebestreit, Helge A1 - Zeidler, Cornelia A1 - Schippers, Christopher A1 - de Zwaan, Martina A1 - Deckert, Jürgen A1 - Heuschmann, Peter A1 - Krauth, Christian A1 - Bullinger, Monika A1 - Berger, Alexandra A1 - Berneburg, Mark A1 - Brandstetter, Lilly A1 - Deibele, Anna A1 - Dieris-Hirche, Jan A1 - Graessner, Holm A1 - Gündel, Harald A1 - Herpertz, Stephan A1 - Heuft, Gereon A1 - Lapstich, Anne-Marie A1 - Lücke, Thomas A1 - Maisch, Tim A1 - Mundlos, Christine A1 - Petermann-Meyer, Andrea A1 - Müller, Susanne A1 - Ott, Stephan A1 - Pfister, Lisa A1 - Quitmann, Julia A1 - Romanos, Marcel A1 - Rutsch, Frank A1 - Schaubert, Kristina A1 - Schubert, Katharina A1 - Schulz, Jörg B. A1 - Schweiger, Susann A1 - Tüscher, Oliver A1 - Ungethüm, Kathrin A1 - Wagner, Thomas O. F. A1 - Haas, Kirsten T1 - Dual guidance structure for evaluation of patients with unclear diagnosis in centers for rare diseases (ZSE-DUO): study protocol for a controlled multi-center cohort study JF - Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases N2 - Background In individuals suffering from a rare disease the diagnostic process and the confirmation of a final diagnosis often extends over many years. Factors contributing to delayed diagnosis include health care professionals' limited knowledge of rare diseases and frequent (co-)occurrence of mental disorders that may complicate and delay the diagnostic process. The ZSE-DUO study aims to assess the benefits of a combination of a physician focusing on somatic aspects with a mental health expert working side by side as a tandem in the diagnostic process. Study design This multi-center, prospective controlled study has a two-phase cohort design. Methods Two cohorts of 682 patients each are sequentially recruited from 11 university-based German Centers for Rare Diseases (CRD): the standard care cohort (control, somatic expertise only) and the innovative care cohort (experimental, combined somatic and mental health expertise). Individuals aged 12 years and older presenting with symptoms and signs which are not explained by current diagnoses will be included. Data will be collected prior to the first visit to the CRD’s outpatient clinic (T0), at the first visit (T1) and 12 months thereafter (T2). Outcomes Primary outcome is the percentage of patients with one or more confirmed diagnoses covering the symptomatic spectrum presented. Sample size is calculated to detect a 10 percent increase from 30% in standard care to 40% in the innovative dual expert cohort. Secondary outcomes are (a) time to diagnosis/diagnoses explaining the symptomatology; (b) proportion of patients successfully referred from CRD to standard care; (c) costs of diagnosis including incremental cost effectiveness ratios; (d) predictive value of screening instruments administered at T0 to identify patients with mental disorders; (e) patients’ quality of life and evaluation of care; and f) physicians’ satisfaction with the innovative care approach. Conclusions This is the first multi-center study to investigate the effects of a mental health specialist working in tandem with a somatic expert physician in CRDs. If this innovative approach proves successful, it will be made available on a larger scale nationally and promoted internationally. In the best case, ZSE-DUO can significantly shorten the time to diagnosis for a suspected rare disease. KW - rare diseases KW - multi‑center cohort study KW - dual guidance Y1 - 2022 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-300440 VL - 17 IS - 1 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Strahl, André A1 - Gerlich, Christian A1 - Alpers, Georg W. A1 - Ehrmann, Katja A1 - Gehrke, Jörg A1 - Müller-Garnn, Annette A1 - Vogel, Heiner T1 - Development and evaluation of a standardized peer-training in the context of peer review for quality assurance in work capacity evaluation JF - BMC Medical Education N2 - Background: The German quality assurance programme for evaluating work capacity is based on peer review that evaluates the quality of medical experts' reports. Low reliability is thought to be due to systematic differences among peers. For this purpose, we developed a curriculum for a standardized peer-training (SPT). This study investigates, whether the SPT increases the inter-rater reliability of social medical physicians participating in a cross-institutional peer review. Methods: Forty physicians from 16 regional German Pension Insurances were subjected to SPT. The three-day training course consist of nine educational objectives recorded in a training manual. The SPT is split into a basic module providing basic information about the peer review and an advanced module for small groups of up to 12 peers training peer review using medical reports. Feasibility was tested by assessing selection, comprehensibility and subjective use of contents delivered, the trainers' delivery and design of training materials. The effectiveness of SPT was determined by evaluating peer concordance using three anonymised medical reports assessed by each peer. Percentage agreement and Fleiss' kappa (κ\(_m\)) were calculated. Concordance was compared with review results from a previous unstructured, non-standardized peer-training programme (control condition) performed by 19 peers from 12 German Pension Insurances departments. The control condition focused exclusively on the application of peer review in small groups. No specifically training materials, methods and trainer instructions were used. Results: Peer-training was shown to be feasible. The level of subjective confidence in handling the peer review instrument varied between 70 and 90%. Average percentage agreement for the main outcome criterion was 60.2%, resulting in a κ\(_m\) of 0.39. By comparison, the average percentage concordance was 40.2% and the κ\(_m\) was 0.12 for the control condition. Conclusion: Concordance with the main criterion was relevant but not significant (p = 0.2) higher for SPT than for the control condition. Fleiss' kappa coefficient showed that peer concordance was higher for SPT than randomly expected. Nevertheless, a score of 0.39 for the main criterion indicated only fair inter-rater reliability, considerably lower than the conventional standard of 0.7 for adequate reliability. KW - inter-rater reliability KW - peer review KW - quality assurance KW - training curriculum KW - work capacity evaluation Y1 - 2018 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-175738 VL - 18 IS - 135 ER -