ArticleDer Nervenarzt2014
[The new financial compensation system PEPP: an ethical analysis].
Article in Der Nervenarzt, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe new compensation system for psychiatric and psychosomatic institutions (German acronym: PEPP) not only constitutes a change in billing practices, but also necessitates an ethical investigation and analysis of possible consequences of the new legislation for those affected in practice. MATERIAL AND
methodsFollowing the presentation of the new PEPP and its consequences for psychiatric practice, problems and areas of conflict will be analyzed from an ethical perspective and discussed.
resultsEthical conflicts exist in the following areas: (1) in the attempt to standardize inpatient care and invoicing for mental illnesses, (2) in poorer treatment for severely ill patients in view of degressive per diem rates, (3) in false incentives due to threshold values e.g. for 1:1 health professional-patient ratios in the case of coercive measures and (4) due to the inappropriate use of a supposed normative neutral quantitative economic model for a qualitative work area that often takes place in human border zones such as complex inpatient care of severely mentally ill patients.
conclusionThe ethical analysis of PEPP reveals that apart from the limited opportunities to improve efficiency, there is a considerable ethical risk of loss of quality in psychiatric inpatient care in particular for severely and chronically mentally ill patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.