RESUMO
Background: Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, global healthcare systems have faced unprecedented challenges, leading to significant psychological distress among healthcare professionals. Recognizing the importance of enhanced interprofessional collaboration in alleviating this burden, as emphasized by the World Health Organization in 2020, we investigated whether such collaboration could mitigate staff psychological distress during crises. To our knowledge, no study has yet explored the role of interprofessional collaboration as a resilience factor in crises. Methods: For this monocentric cross-sectional study at a German university hospital, we examined the relationship between the quality of interprofessional collaboration and the psychological distress of healthcare professionals during the initial pandemic wave. We employed validated mental health instruments, such as the GAD-7 and PHQ-2, to assess anxiety and depressive symptoms. Additionally, custom-designed questionnaires evaluated "Pandemic-Associated Burden and Anxiety (PAB; PAA)" and interprofessional crisis management experiences. A novel "Interprofessional collaboration and communication (IPC)" assessment tool was developed based on international competency frameworks, demonstrating strong reliability. Results: The study involved 299 healthcare professionals (78.6% in direct contact with COVID-19 patients). Moderate levels of PAB/PAA were reported. However, a significant proportion experienced clinically relevant anxiety, as indicated by GAD-7. Negative IPC perceptions correlated with higher levels of psychological distress. Linear regression analysis showed associations between interprofessional collaboration and anxious and depressive symptoms, and pandemic-related burden. Conclusion: Our findings highlight the vital role of enhanced interprofessional collaboration in strengthening the psychological well-being of healthcare professionals during crises. The study underscores the need to foster a collaborative environment and integrate interprofessional education for resilience.
RESUMO
Introduction: Interprofessional teamwork is pivotal in modern healthcare, prompting the establishment of interprofessional training wards since 1996. While these wards serve as hubs for optimizing healthcare professional collaboration and communication, research into patient outcomes remains notably sparse and geographically limited, predominantly examining patient satisfaction and sparingly exploring other metrics like mortality or self-discharge rates. This study seeks to bridge this gap, comparing patient outcomes in interprofessional training wards and conventional wards under the hypothesis that the former offers no disadvantage to patient outcomes. Materials and methods: We explored patient outcomes within an interprofessional student ward called A-STAR at a University Hospital from October 2019 to December 2022. Engaging with patients discharged between May 2021 and April 2022, we utilized digital and paper-based anonymous questionnaires, catering to patient preference, to gather pertinent data. Results: Analysis of outcomes for 1,482 A-STAR (interprofessional student ward) and 5,752 conventional ward patients revealed noteworthy findings. A-STAR patients tended to be younger (59 vs. 61 years, p < 0.01) and more frequently male (73.5% vs. 70.4%, p = 0.025). Vital clinical outcomes, such as discharges against medical advice, complication-driven readmissions, and ICU transfers, were statistically similar between groups, as were mortality rates (1.2% vs. 1.3%, p = 0.468). A-STAR demonstrated high patient satisfaction, underscored by positive reflections on team competence, ward atmosphere, and responsiveness to concerns, emphasizing the value placed on interprofessional collaboration. Patient narratives commended team kindness, lucid explanations, and proactive involvement. Discussion: This data collectively underscores the safety and reliability of patient care within training wards, affirming that patients can trust the care provided in these settings. Patients on the interprofessional ward demonstrated high satisfaction levels: 96.7% appreciated the atmosphere and conduct of ward rounds. In comparison, 98.3% were satisfied with the discussion and information about their treatment during their hospital stay.
RESUMO
Introduction: Interprofessional collaboration in healthcare involves diverse professionals working together to address complex patient needs. Interprofessional training wards offer workplace-based interprofessional education in real healthcare settings, fostering collaborative learning among students. While their educational value is widely recognized, debates persist regarding their cost-effectiveness due to limited research. This study assesses the cost efficiency of the interprofessional training ward Regensburg (A-STAR) within the Department of Internal Medicine I at the University Hospital Regensburg, compared to conventional wards. Methods: From October 2019 to December 2022, 7,244 patient cases were assigned to A-STAR or conventional wards by case managers, with a comprehensive analysis of all associated revenues and costs. Results: A-STAR treated 1,482 patients, whereas conventional wards treated 5,752 patients, with more males and younger patients at A-STAR. A-STAR achieved higher profit per case (1,508.74) attributed to increased revenues and reduced material costs. It generated an average of 1,366.54 more Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) revenue per case annually than conventional wards, due to greater medical complexity reflected in a higher case-mix index (CMI: 2.4 vs. 2.2). The increased case complexity led to longer patient stays (9.0 vs. 8.1 days) and fewer cases treated annually at A-STAR (27.4 cases/year vs. 37.8 cases/year). The higher CMI did not result in a higher proportion of patients requiring isolation. A-STAR exhibited a higher capacity utilization rate (87.1% vs. 83.9%). Personnel costs per case at A-STAR were initially elevated due to enhanced observation by the senior physician but were gradually mitigated by expanding A-STAR's bed capacity. Material costs were consistently lower on a per-case basis at A-STAR (1512.02 vs. 1577.12), particularly in terms of medication expenses, indicating more resource-efficient operations. From the A-STAR graduates, 18 individuals were recruited for permanent positions as doctors or nurses over 2 years. Conclusion: A-STAR demonstrates economic efficiency and stability even during the COVID-19 pandemic. The substantial personnel acquisition is likely influenced by high levels of satisfaction with education and work and is economically relevant in medical staff shortages. These findings provide a compelling rationale for the broader implementation of interprofessional training wards, establishing them as vital platforms for nurturing future professionals.