ArticleBMC health services research2025
To bill or not to bill - a cross-sectional study comparing funded and unfunded advance care planning services in German nursing homes.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2018, § 132g of the German Social Code, Book V (SGB V), came into force, allowing long-term care facilities in Germany to bill statutory health insurance for advance care planning (ACP). The present study examined differences in end-of-life care structures between nursing homes that had obtained approval for billing ACP and those that had not (and do not intend to obtain this approval), as well as the extent to which ACP is available to residents beyond the scope of these billing options.
methodsA nationwide cross-sectional survey was conducted in 2023 among a random sample of 1,369 German nursing homes. The questionnaire, primarily targeting nursing home management staff, aimed to evaluate hospice and palliative care structures and ACP implementation. This manuscript compares nursing homes that had obtained approval for ACP billing with those that had not received approval and had no intention of applying for it; therefore, a subset of the returned questionnaires was used for analysis.
resultsA total of 330 questionnaires were received (response rate 24%; mostly completed by nursing home management staff), enabling the comparison of 100 nursing homes with ACP billing approval and 68 without. ACP was more prevalent in nursing homes with billing approval (96.0% vs. 36.4%; p < 0.001). While nursing homes with approval reported higher proportions of residents with written health care proxies (66.7% vs. 58.7%; p = 0.049) and advance directives (68.5% vs. 55.6%; p < 0.001), no significant difference was found in the presence of emergency plans (36.0% vs. 37.6%; p = 0.782). Furthermore, a substantial rate of at least one of these three precautionary documents was not considered useful in cases of hospitalization or cardiac arrest. Both nursing home groups reported strong collaboration with external palliative care providers, particularly general practitioners.
conclusionsACP appears accessible in nursing homes that have obtained approval for billing ACP, as well as in those that have not. Nursing homes with approval have a higher proportion of residents with advance directives. However, the limited presence of emergency plans and concerns about the utility of the three precautionary documents highlight the need for quality assurance in ACP consultation and documentation.
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.