Cost-effectiveness in an interprofessional training ward within a university department for internal medicine: a monocentric open-label controlled study of the A-STAR Regensburg.

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.

Evaluating the impact of interprofessional training wards on patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes: a mixed-methods analysis.

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.

Quality of Life After Sphincter-Preserving Rectal Cancer Resection.

BACKGROUND: With an increasing number of cancer survivors quality of life (QoL) becomes more and more important in the treatment of rectal cancer (RC). QoL after sphincter-preserving anterior resection (AR), however, was found nonsuperior to abdominoperineal resection. The aim of our study was to evaluate QoL after AR compared with colon cancer patients after right hemicolectomy (CC) and healthy lay persons without history of cancer (HL) in long-term follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive alive RC patients (n = 293) who received an AR between 1998 and 2008 were included. CC patients (n = 201) and HL of the same age were used as a surgical and a nonsurgical control group, respectively. QoL was assessed using European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer questionnaires QLQ-C 30 and -CR 38. RESULTS: Questionnaires from 116 RC patients, 105 CC patients, and 103 HL were evaluable with a median time after surgery of 5 years. The global health status did not differ. Social functioning, future perspectives, and financial difficulties tended to poorer scores in the cancer groups. Physical functioning was better in RC and CC patients compared with HL. Defecation problems and diarrhea were more frequent in RC patients (P < .05). An additional open question revealed a median stool frequency of 3, 2, and 1 per day for RC, CC, and HL, respectively. Defecation problems were more frequent in RC patients who received radiation therapy (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Diarrhea and defecation problems impaired QoL after AR for RC, which was worsened after radiation therapy. To improve QoL of RC patients in the future, physicians have to focus on minimization of gastrointestinal side effects while optimizing surgical reconstruction.