[Safety of patient care on an interprofessional training ward in visceral surgery]. / Sicherheit der Patientenversorgung auf einer viszeralchirurgischen interprofessionellen Ausbildungsstation.

BACKGROUND: Interprofessional training wards (ITW) are increasingly being integrated into teaching and training concepts in visceral surgery clinics. OBJECTIVE: How safe is patient care on an ITW in visceral surgery? MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data collection took place from November 2021 to December 2022. In this nonrandomized prospective evaluation study the frequency and severity of adverse events (AE) in 3 groups of 100 patients each in a tertiary referral center hospital for visceral surgery were investigated. The groups consisted of patients on the ITW and on the conventional ward before and after implementation of the ITW. The Global Trigger Tool (GTT) was used to search for AE. Simultaneously, a survey of the treatment was conducted according to the Picker method to measure patient reported outcome. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics and clinical outcome parameters of the patients in the three groups were comparable. The GTT analysis found 74 nonpreventable and 5 preventable AE in 63 (21%) of the patients and 12 AE occurred before the hospital stay. During the hospital stay 50 AE occurred in the operating theater and 17 on the conventional ward. None of the five preventable AE (in 1.7% of the patients) was caused by the treatment on the ITW. Patients rated the safety on the ITW better than in 90% of the hospitals included in the Picker benchmark cohort and as good as on the normal ward. CONCLUSION: The GTT-based data as well as from the patients' point of view show that patient care on a carefully implemented ITW in visceral surgery is safe.

[Experiences and attitudes regarding practice-based clinical trials: results of a survey among German primary care physicians]. / Erfahrungen und Einstellungen zu Klinischen Studien in der Hausarztpraxis: Ergebnisse einer Befragung von deutschen Hausärzten.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical trials are regarded as complex due to the high demands on quality and patient safety and are still exceptional in German primary care. To optimise future trial planning, this study aimed at investigating the barriers and enablers experienced by primary care physicians (PCPs) for trial participation. METHODS: PCPs were surveyed on 11 regional primary care medical education (CME) events using a standardised questionnaire. Regression analyses were used to identify predictors for future trial participation. RESULTS: Of 804 invited PCPs, 408 (50.7%) participated in the survey (51 ± 9 years, female 35%). 69% of participants could imagine their participation in a clinical trial. Of 12 potential factors assessed, the final model retained the 2 predictors (OR; CI; P-value) "research questions relevant to practice" (2.25; 1.61-3.14;<0.001) and "new challenges/change from everyday life" (2.24; 1.67-2.97;<0.001). While 58% of participants were principally willing to participate in investigator training courses according to Good Clinical Practice (GCP), only 6% had participated in such training at the time of answering. Short events were preferred. Only 7% were willing to take over at least half of the costs of these courses. CONCLUSION: To enhance German PCPs motivation to participate in clinical trials, both trials and training courses should be tailored to the needs in the primary care setting.