Zusammenfassung. Hintergrund: Die Zunahme komplexer Versorgungssituationen aufgrund einer steigenden Anzahl älterer Menschen mit chronischen Erkrankungen bei gleichzeitigem Mangel an pflegerischem und medizinischem Fachpersonal erfordert innovative Versorgungskonzepte. Im Rahmen der Implementierung und Entwicklung neuer, innovativer pflegerischer Rollen gilt ein unklares Rollenverständnis als Barriere. Fragestellung/Ziel: Beschreibung des Rollenverständnisses von Pflegeexpert_innen (PE) in der Primär- und Akutversorgung in Deutschland. Methode: Mittels Fragebögen werden PE zur Rollenklarheit, -kompetenz und -ausübung sowie zur wahrgenommenen Handlungsautonomie und interprofessionellen Zusammenarbeit im Querschnitt befragt. Die Auswertung erfolgt deskriptiv. Ergebnisse: Es haben acht bzw. 14 PE (Primär- bzw. Akutversorgung) an der Befragung teilgenommen. PE üben mehrheitlich oft/sehr oft sowohl die klinische Rolle (77,5% bzw. 85,7%) als auch die von Expert_innen (75% bzw. 78,6%) aus. Die Mehrheit gibt an, ihre Rolle gegenüber Patient_innen (75% bzw. 92,9%) und Ärzt_innen (87,5% bzw. 90,9%) erklären zu können. Ein hohes Maß an Handlungsautonomie wird eher von PE aus der Akutversorgung wahrgenommen. Schlussfolgerungen: Trotz Gemeinsamkeiten hinsichtlich des Rollenverständnisses können PE der Akutversorgung offenbar von bereits etablierten Strukturen profitieren, was sich u.a. in der wahrgenommenen Handlungsautonomie widerspiegelt.

INTRODUCTION:Older age is associated with multimorbidity, chronic diseases and acute deteriorations and leads to complex care needs. Nursing home residents are more often unnecessarily transferred to emergency departments or hospitals than community dwellers-largely due to a lack of qualified staff and diffusion of responsibility in the institutions. In Germany, only few academically trained nurses work in nursing homes, and their potential roles are unclear. Therefore, we aim to explore feasibility and potential effects of a newly defined role profile for nurses with bachelors' degree or equivalent qualification in nursing homes.METHODS AND ANALYSIS:A pilot study (Expand-Care) with a cluster-randomised controlled design will be conducted in 11 nursing homes (cluster) in Germany, with an allocation ratio of 5:6 to the intervention or control group, aiming to include 15 residents per cluster (165 participants in total). Nurses in the intervention group will receive training to perform role-related tasks such as case reviews and complex geriatric assessments. We will collect data at three time points (t0 baseline, t1 3 months and t2 6 months after randomisation). We will measure on residents' level: hospital admissions, further health services use and quality of life; clinical outcomes (eg, symptom burden), physical functioning and delivery of care; mortality, adverse clinical incidents and changes in care level. On nurses' level, we will measure perception of the new role profile, competencies and implementation of role-related tasks as part of the process evaluation (mixed methods). An economic evaluation will explore resource use on residents' (healthcare utilisation) and on nurses' level (costs and time expenditure).ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The ethics committees of the University of Lübeck (Nr. 22-162) and the University Clinic Hamburg-Eppendorf (Nr. 2022-200452-BO-bet) approved the Expand-Care study. Informed consent is a prerequisite for participation. Study results will be published in open-access, peer-reviewed journals and reported at conferences and in local healthcare providers' networks.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:DRKS00028708.

Role understanding of expert nurses in primary and acute care in Germany: A descriptive cross-sectional study Abstract. Background: Innovative care concepts are necessary to cope with the increase in complex care situations due to a rising number of older people with chronic diseases and a simultaneous shortage of nursing and medical staff. In the context of the implementation and development of new, innovative nursing roles, an unclear role understanding is considered a barrier. Aim: Description of expert nurses' (EN) role understanding in primary and acute care in Germany. Method: Using questionnaires, EN are asked cross-sectionally about role clarity, competencies and performance as well as perceived autonomy and interprofessional collaboration. Results are analysed descriptively. Results: A total of eight (primary care) and 14 (acute care) EN completed the questionnaires. The majority of EN often/very often perform both the clinical (77.5% and 85.7%, respectively) and the expert role (75% and 78.6%, respectively) and indicate that they can explain their role to patients (75% and 92.9%, respectively) and physicians (87.5% and 90.9%, respectively). Having a high degree of autonomy is more likely to be perceived by EN working in acute care. Conclusion: Although there are similarities in terms of role understanding, EN working in acute care can apparently benefit from already established structures, which is reflected, among other things, in their perceived autonomy.

Background To improve health care in rural areas, especially for increasing numbers of people with chronic diseases, academically qualified nurses could take over expanded roles to meet the challenges of an ageing society and a decreasing number of General Practitioners (GPs). In the project “HandinHand” (HiH), qualified nurses (Expert nurses, ENs) will carry out home visits to older people with chronic diseases over a period of six months. ENs will prepare a care plan in cooperation with GPs to stabilise the care situation and avoid unplanned hospital admissions and GP visits. The process evaluation aims to provide an in-depth analysis of the implementation process and gather important information on barriers and facilitators to the implementation of ENs as a complementary health care structure in primary care, taking into account several context factors. Methods Based on the Medical Research Council (MRC) Framework for complex interventions, a logic model was developed and applied as the basis for data collection. Qualitative and quantitative data will be collected during the study. A mixed methods approach should allow to gain important insights from participants (e.g. ENs, GPs, patients) involved in the study as well as relevant stakeholders. Semi-structured interviews and surveys will be conducted. Data analysis will be based on the logical model, combining qualitative and quantitative data. Qualitative data will be analysed inductively-deductively using qualitative thematic framework analysis. Discussion The process evaluation will provide guidance and conclusions on further development and transferability. Of particular interest is the expanded role of ENs in primary care, which has barely been implemented in Germany and can be seen as a precursor to the development of an Advanced Practice Nursing (APN) role in primary care.

Background In patients with chronic heart failure, thirst can be perceived as an intensive and burdensome symptom, which may have a negative impact on patients' quality of life. To initiate thirst-relieving interventions, assessment of thirst and its related distress is essential. At the time of this study, no instrument was available to evaluate thirst distress in patients with heart failure in Germany. Objective The aims of this study were to translate the “Thirst Distress Scale for patients with Heart Failure” (TDS-HF) from English into German and to test validity and reliability of the scale. Methods The English version of the TDS-HF was translated into German. A linguistically and culturally sensitive forward-and-backward translation was performed. Psychometric evaluation included confirmatory factor analysis, reliability in terms of internal consistency, and concurrent validity. Results Eighty-four hospitalized patients (mean age, 72 ± 10 years; 29% female; mean left ventricular ejection fraction, 36% ± 12%; 62% New York Heart Association functional classes III–IV, 45% on fluid restriction) from an acute care hospital were involved in the study. The item-total correlation ranged from 0.58 to 0.78. Interitem correlations varied between 0.37 and 0.79. Internal consistency was high, with a Cronbach α of 0.89. There was a high correlation between the total score of the TDS-HF and the visual analog scale to assess thirst intensity (r = 0.72, P ≤ .001), and a low correlation with fluid restriction (r = 0.35, P = .002). Conclusions The evaluation of the German TDS-HF showed satisfactory psychometric properties in this sample. The instrument is usable for further research and additional psychometric testing.

AIMS:In heart failure, various biomarkers are established for diagnosis and risk stratification; however, little is known about the relevance of serial measurements during an episode worsening heart failure (WHF). This study sought to investigate the trajectory of natriuretic peptides and multiple novel biomarkers during hospitalization for WHF and to determine the best time point to predict outcome.METHODS AND RESULTS:MOLITOR (Impact of Therapy Optimisation on the Level of Biomarkers in Patients with Acute and Decompensated Chronic Heart Failure) was an eight-centre prospective study of 164 patients hospitalized with a primary diagnosis of WHF. C-terminal fragment of pre-pro-vasopressin (copeptin), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), mid-regional pro-atrial natriuretic peptide (MR-proANP), mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proADM), and C-terminal pro-endothelin-1 (CT-proET1) were measured on admission, after 24, 48, and 72 h, and every 72 h thereafter, at discharge and follow-up visits. Their performance to predict all-cause mortality and rehospitalization at 90 days was compared. All biomarkers decreased during recompensation (P < 0.05) except MR-proADM. Copeptin at admission was the best predictor of 90 day mortality or rehospitalization (χ2  = 16.63, C-index = 0.724, P < 0.001), followed by NT-proBNP (χ2  = 10.53, C-index = 0.646, P = 0.001), MR-proADM (χ2  = 9.29, C-index = 0.686, P = 0.002), MR-proANP (χ2  = 8.75, C-index = 0.631, P = 0.003), and CT-proET1 (χ2  = 6.60, C-index = 0.64, P = 0.010). Re-measurement of copeptin at 72 h and of NT-proBNP at 48 h increased prognostic value (χ2  = 23.48, C-index = 0.718, P = 0.00001; χ2  = 14.23, C-index = 0.650, P = 0.00081, respectively).CONCLUSIONS:This largest sample of serial measurements of multiple biomarkers in WHF found copeptin at admission with re-measurement at 72 h to be the best predictor of 90 day mortality and rehospitalization.

Patient-reported outcomes such as health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are main treatment goals for heart failure (HF) and therefore endpoints in multinational therapy trials. However, little is known about country-specific differences in HRQoL and in treatment-associated HRQoL improvement. The present work sought to examine those questions.

AIMS:Previous studies demonstrated poor public awareness of heart failure (HF) compared with myocardial infarction and stroke. With respect to several activities to improve HF awareness in recent years, we present data on the development of HF awareness and information sources in Germany over 8 years.METHODS AND RESULTS:In 2007, 2012, and 2015, respectively, 2531, 359, and 171 respondents answered questions about causes, presentation, prognosis, and treatment of HF from a survey developed by the German Competence Network HF. Relationships between respondents' sociodemographic data and their HF knowledge were explored and changes in knowledge and use of information sources analysed. Sixty-eight per cent of respondents knew HF as 'weakness of the heart'. Seventy-nine per cent knew shortness of breath, 74% reduced exercise tolerance, and 52% knew leg edema as symptoms. Only 40% knew all three symptoms. Although up to 34% of the respondents were directly or indirectly affected by HF, they demonstrated poor knowledge about severity and prognosis. Between 2007 and 2015, overall HF awareness has not changed; awareness about treatment has dropped significantly. Younger respondents used all media, especially internet, for information about health; older respondents preferred printed/verbal media and their physician.CONCLUSIONS:We found rather insufficient public knowledge on HF etiology and symptoms but especially about management, severity, and prognosis, which is essential for good self-care and adherence of patients. Heart failure awareness has not improved even though awareness campaigns were held over the years. It seems that especially older patients should be much more approached by their family physicians.

Aims: In heart failure, a holistic approach incorporating the patient's perspective is vital for prognosis and treatment. Self-rated health has strong associations with adverse events and short-term mortality risk, but long-term data are limited. We investigated the predictive value of two consecutive self-rated health assessments with regard to long-term mortality in a large, well characterised sample of elderly patients with stable chronic heart failure.Methods and results: We measured self-rated health by asking In general, would you say your health is: 1, excellent; 2, very good; 3, good; 4, fair; 5, poor?' twice: at baseline and the end of a 12-week beta-blocker up-titration period in the CIBIS-ELD trial. Mortality was assessed in an observational follow-up after 2-4 years. A total of 720 patients (mean left ventricular ejection fraction 4512%, mean age 73 +/- 5 years, 36% women) rated their health at both time points. During long-term follow-up, 144 patients died (all-cause mortality 20%). Fair/poor self-rated health in at least one of the two reports was associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio 1.42 per level; 95% confidence interval 1.16-1.75; P<0.001). It remained independently significant in multiple Cox regression analysis, adjusted for N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NTproBNP), heart rate and other risk prediction covariates. Self-rated health by one level worse was as predictive for mortality as a 1.9-fold increase in NTproBNP.Conclusion: Poor self-rated health predicts mortality in our long-term follow-up of patients with stable chronic heart failure, even after adjustment for established risk predictors. We encourage clinicians to capture patient-reported self-rated health routinely as an easy to assess, clinically meaningful measure and pay extra attention when self-rated health is poor.

Patients with heart failure (HF) commonly suffer from severe impairment of quality of life (QoL). One main goal of HF treatment is improvement of QoL. Physical well‐being is an essential component of QoL. To enable assessment of physical well‐being in HF patients, we validated the FEW16 questionnaire in a prospective study with patients from the Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study in ELDerly.

OBJECTIVES This study evaluated the tolerability and feasibility of titration of 2 distinctly acting beta-blockers (BB) in elderly heart failure patients with preserved (HFpEF) and reduced (HFrEF) left ventricular ejection fraction.BACKGROUND Broad evidence supports the use of BB in HFrEF, whereas the evidence for beta blockade in HFpEF is uncertain.METHODS In the CIBIS-ELD (Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study in Elderly) trial, patients >65 years of age with HFrEF (n = 626) or HFpEF (n = 250) were randomized to bisoprolol or carvedilol. Both BB were up-titrated to the target or maximum tolerated dose. Follow-up was performed after 12 weeks. HFrEF and HFpEF patients were compared regarding tolerability and clinical effects (heart rate, blood pressure, systolic and diastolic functions, New York Heart Association functional class, 6-minute-walk distance, quality of life, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide).RESULTS For both of the BBs, tolerability and daily dose at 12 weeks were similar. HFpEF patients demonstrated higher rates of dose escalation delays and treatment-related side effects. Similar HR reductions were observed in both groups (HFpEF: 6.6 beats/min; HFrEF: 6.9 beats/min, p = NS), whereas greater improvement in NYHA functional class was observed in HFrEF (HFpEF: 23% vs. HFrEF: 34%, p < 0.001). Mean E/e' and left atrial volume index did not change in either group, although E/A increased in HFpEF.CONCLUSIONS BB tolerability was comparable between HFrEF and HFpEF. Relevant reductions of HR and blood pressure occurred in both groups. However, only HFrEF patients experienced considerable improvements in clinical parameters and Left ventricular function. Interestingly, beta-blockade had no effect on established and prognostic markers of diastolic function in either group. Long-term studies using modern diagnostic criteria for HFpEF are urgently needed to establish whether BB therapy exerts significant clinical benefit in HFpEF. (Comparison of Bisoprolol and Carvedilol in Elderly Heart Failure [HF] Patients: A Randomised, Double-Blind Multicentre Study [CIBIS-ELD]; ISRCTN34827306) (C) 2016 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

The interaction between the heart and the arterial system (ventricular-arterial coupling - VA) is an important determinant of cardiovascular performance. Vascular stiffness (Ea) and left ventricular (LV) endsystolic stiffness (Elv) augment with age and in heart failure (HF). Beta blockers (BB) are recommended therapy for patients with HF. However, data about the effects of BB on VA coupling are scarce.

BACKGROUND:The aim of our study was to examine regional differences in the demographics, etiology, risk factors, comorbidities and treatment of female patients with heart failure (HF) in the Cardiac Insufficiency BIsoprolol Study in ELDerly (CIBIS-ELD) clinical trial.METHODS AND RESULTS:One hundred and fifty-nine female patients from Germany and 169 from Southeastern (SE) Europe (Serbia, Slovenia and Montenegro) were included in this subanalysis of the CIBIS-ELD trial. Women comprised 54% of the study population in Germany and 29% in SE Europe. German patients were significantly older. The leading cause of HF was arterial hypertension in German patients, 71.7% of whom had a preserved ejection fraction. The leading etiology in SE Europe was the coronary artery disease; 67.6% of these patients had a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (34.64 ± 7.75%). No significant differences were found in the prevalence of traditional cardiovascular risk factors between the two regions (hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, smoking and family history of myocardial infarction). Depression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and malignancies were the comorbidities that were noted more frequently in the German patients, while the patients from SE Europe had a lower glomerular filtration rate. Compared with the German HF patients, the females in SE Europe received significantly more angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, loop diuretics and less frequently angiotensin receptor blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists.CONCLUSIONS:Significant regional differences were noted in the etiology, comorbidities and treatment of female patients with HF despite similar risk factors. Such differences should be considered in the design and implementation of future clinical trials, especially as women remain underrepresented in large trial populations.