Development of individual competencies and team performance in interprofessional ward rounds: results of a study with multimodal observations at the Heidelberg Interprofessional Training Ward.

INTRODUCTION Interprofessional training wards (IPTW) aim to improve undergraduates' interprofessional collaborative practice of care. Little is known about the effects of the different team tasks on IPTW as measured by external assessment. In Heidelberg, Germany, four nursing and four medical undergraduates (= one cohort) care for up to six patients undergoing general surgery during a four-week placement. They learn both professionally and interprofessionally, working largely on their own responsibility under the supervision of the medical and nursing learning facilitators. Interprofessional ward rounds are a central component of developing individual competencies and team performance. The aim of this study was to evaluate individual competencies and team performance shown in ward rounds. METHODS Observations took place in four cohorts of four nursing and four medical undergraduates each. Undergraduates in one cohort were divided into two teams, which rotated in morning and afternoon shifts. Team 1 was on morning shift during the first (t0) and third (t1) weeks of the IPTW placement, and Team 2 was on morning shift during the second (t0) and fourth (t1) weeks. Within each team, a tandem of one nursing and one medical undergraduate cared for a patient room with three patients. Ward round observations took place with each team and tandem at t0 and t1 using the IP-VITA instrument for individual competencies (16 items) and team performance (11 items). Four hypotheses were formulated for statistical testing with linear mixed models and correlations. RESULTS A total of 16 nursing and medical undergraduates each were included. There were significant changes in mean values between t0 and t1 in individual competencies (Hypothesis 1). They were statistically significant for all three sum scores: "Roles and Responsibilities", Patient-Centeredness", and "Leadership". In terms of team performance (Hypothesis 2), there was a statistically significant change in mean values in the sum score "Roles and Responsibilities" and positive trends in the sum scores "Patient-Centeredness" and "Decision-Making/Collaborative Clinical Reasoning". Analysis of differences in the development of individual competencies in the groups of nursing and medical undergraduates (Hypothesis 3) showed more significant differences in the mean values of the two groups in t0 than in t1. There were significant correlations between individual competencies and team performance at both t0 and t1 (Hypothesis 4). DISCUSSION The study has limitations due to the small sample and some sources of bias related to the external assessment by means of observation. Nevertheless, this study offers insights into interprofessional tasks on the IPTW from an external assessment. Results from quantitative and qualitative analysis of learners self-assessment are confirmed in terms of roles and responsibilities and patient-centeredness. It has been observed that medical undergraduates acquired and applied skills in collaborative clinic reasoning and decision-making, whereas nursing undergraduates acquired leadership skills. Within the study sample, only a small group of tandems remained constant over time. In team performance, the group of constant tandems tended to perform better than the group of random tandems. The aim of IPTW should be to prepare healthcare team members for the challenge of changing teams. Therefore, implications for IPTW implementation could be to develop learning support approaches that allow medical and nursing undergraduates to bring interprofessional competencies to team performance, independent of the tandem partner or team

The impact of an interprofessional training ward on the development of interprofessional competencies: study protocol of a longitudinal mixed-methods study

Background: To meet the patients’ needs and to provide adequate health care, students need to be prepared for interprofessional collaborative practice during their undergraduate education. On interprofessional training wards (IPTW) undergraduates of various health care professions potentially develop a mutual understanding and improve their interprofessional competencies in clinical practice. To enhance collaboration of 6th-year medical students and nursing trainees in the third year of their vocational training an IPTW (Heidelberger Interprofessionelle Ausbildungsstation – HIPSTA) was implemented at the University Hospital Heidelberg, Germany. On HIPSTA future physicians and nurses take care of the patients self responsibly and in close interprofessional collaboration, supervised by facilitators of both professions. Although there are positive experiences with IPTWs internationally, little is known about the impact of IPTW on the acquisition of interprofessional competencies. For future interprofessional training and implementation of IPTWs evaluation of interprofessional learning and collaborative practice on Germany’s first IPTW is of high relevance. Methods: To evaluate the acquisition of interprofessional competencies the study follows a mixed-methods approach. Quantitative data is collected from undergraduate participants, staff participants and facilitators on HIPSTA (intervention group) and undergraduate participants and staff participants on a comparable ‘conventional’ ward without special interprofessional training (comparison group) immediately pre and post HIPSTA and, as follow-up, after three to six months (T0, T1, T2), using three questionnaires, namely the University of the West of England Interprofessional Questionnaire (UWE-IP), the Interprofessional Socialization and Valuing Scale (ISVS) and the Assessment of Interprofessional Team Collaboration Scale (AITCS). Qualitative data is gathered in form of interviews and focus groups based on semi structured guidelines, video recordings of handovers and overt non-participant observations of daily rounds. Quantitative data will be analysed in a longitudinal comparison, presented descriptively and tested with an analysis of variance. Qualitative data will be analysed deductively and inductively. Discussion: The results of the evaluation will give insight in undergraduates’, staff’s and facilitators’ experiences and their self-perception of competency development. In addition the results will help identify benefits, challenges and areas for modification when implementing and establishing similar interprofessional training wards

Abdominal drainage versus no drainage after distal pancreatectomy: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: The placement of prophylactic intra-abdominal drains has been common practice in abdominal operations including pancreatic surgery. The PANDRA trial showed that the omission of drains following pancreatic head resection was non-inferior to intra-abdominal drainage in terms of postoperative reinterventions and superior in terms of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula rate and fistula-associated complications. The aim of the present PANDRA II trial is to evaluate the clinical outcome with versus without prophylactic drain placement after distal pancreatectomy. Methods: The PANDRA II trial is a mono-center, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial with two parallel study groups. In the control group at least one passive intra-abdominal drain is placed at the pancreatic resection margin. In the experimental group no drains are placed. The primary endpoint of this trial will be the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) measuring all postoperative complications within 90 days. Secondary endpoints are in-hospital mortality and morbidity, including the rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula, chyle leak, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying, reinterventions and reoperations, surgical site infection, and abdominal fascia dehiscence. Moreover, length of hospital stay, duration of intensive care unit stay, and the rate of readmission after discharge from hospital (up to day 90 after surgery) are assessed. We will need to analyze 252 patients to test the hypothesis that no drainage is non-inferior to drain placement in terms of the CCI (δ 7.5 points) in a one-sided t test with a one-sided level of significance of 2.5% and a power of 80%. Discussion: The results of the PANDRA II trial will help to evaluate the effect of an omission of prophylactic intraperitoneal drainage on the rate of complications after open or minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy. Trial registration: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), DRKS00013763. Registered on 6 March 2018

Prospective multicentre cohort study of patient-reported outcomes and complications following major abdominal neoplastic surgery (PATRONUS) – study protocol for a CHIR-Net student-initiated German medical audit study (CHIR-Net SIGMA study)

Background: One of the most important aspects of designing a clinical trial is selecting appropriate outcomes. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can provide a personal assessment of the burden and impact of a malignant disease and its treatment. PROs comprise a wide range of outcomes including basic clinical symptom scores and complex metrics such as health-related quality of life (HRQoL). There is limited data on how postoperative complications following cancer surgery affect symptoms and HRQoL. For this reason the primary aim of the PATRONUS study is to investigate how perioperative complications affect cancer-related symptoms and HRQoL in patients undergoing abdominal cancer surgery. The PATRONUS study is designed and will be initiated and conducted by medical students under the direct supervision of clinician scientists based on the concept of inquiry-based learning. Methods: PATRONUS is a non-interventional prospective multicentre cohort study. Patients undergoing elective oncological abdominal surgery will be recruited at regional centres of the clinical network of the German Surgical Society (CHIR-Net) and associated hospitals. A core set of 12 cancer associated symptoms will be assessed via the PRO version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. The cancer-specific HRQoL will be measured via the computerised adaptive testing version of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30. PROs will be measured eight times over a period of six months. The short-term clinical outcome measure is the rate of postoperative complications (grade II to V) within 30 days according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. The long-term clinical outcome is overall survival within six months postoperative. Discussion: PATRONUS will provide essential insights into the patients’ assessment of their well-being and quality of life in direct relation to clinical outcome parameters following abdominal cancer surgery. Furthermore, PATRONUS will investigate the feasibility of multicentre student-led clinical research. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00013035 (registered on October 26, 2017). Universal Trial Number (UTN): U1111–1202-8863

Wound Edge Protectors in Open Abdominal Surgery to Reduce Surgical Site Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

<div><p>Importance</p><p>Surgical site infections remain one of the most frequent complications following abdominal surgery and cause substantial costs, morbidity and mortality.</p><p>Objective</p><p>To assess the effectiveness of wound edge protectors in open abdominal surgery in reducing surgical site infections.</p><p>Evidence Review</p><p>A systematic literature search was conducted according to a prespecified review protocol in a variety of data-bases combined with hand-searches for randomized controlled trials on wound edge protectors in patients undergoing laparotomy. A qualitative and quantitative analysis of included trials was conducted.</p><p>Findings</p><p>We identified 16 randomized controlled trials including 3695 patients investigating wound edge protectors published between 1972 and 2014. Critical appraisal uncovered a number of methodological flaws, predominantly in the older trials. Wound edge protectors significantly reduced the rate of surgical site infections (risk ratio 0.65; 95%CI, 0.51–0.83; p = 0.0007; I² = 52%). The results were robust in a number of sensitivity analyses. A similar effect size was found in the subgroup of patients undergoing colorectal surgery (risk ratio 0.65; 95%CI, 0.44–0.97; p = 0.04; I² = 56%). Of the two common types of wound protectors double ring devices were found to exhibit a greater protective effect (risk ratio 0.29; 95%CI, 0.15–0.55) than single-ring devices (risk ratio 0.71; 95%CI, 0.54–0.92), but this might largely be due to the lower quality of available data for double-ring devices. Exploratory subgroup analyses for the degree of contamination showed a larger protective effect in contaminated cases (0.44; 95%CI, 0.28–0.67; p = 0.0002, I² = 23%) than in clean-contaminated surgeries (0.72, 95%CI, 0.57–0.91; p = 0.005; I² = 46%) and a strong effect on the reduction of superficial surgical site infections (risk ratio 0.45; 95%CI, 0.24–0.82; p = 0.001; I² = 72%).</p><p>Conclusions and Relevance</p><p>Wound edge protectors significantly reduce the rate of surgical site infections in open abdominal surgery. Further trials are needed to explore their effectiveness in different risk constellations.</p></div

Evaluation of robotic versus open partial pancreatoduodenectomy—study protocol for a randomised controlled pilot trial (EUROPA, DRKS00020407)

Background!#!Partial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is the indicated surgical procedure for a wide range of benign and malignant diseases of the pancreatic head and distal bile duct and offers the only potential cure for pancreatic head cancer. The current gold standard, open PD (OPD) performed via laparotomy, is associated with morbidity in around 40% of cases, even at specialised centres. Robotic PD (RPD) might offer a viable alternative to OPD and has been shown to be feasible. Encouraging perioperative results have been reported for RPD in a number of small, non-randomised studies. However, since those studies showed a considerable risk of bias, a thorough comparison of RPD with OPD is warranted.!##!Methods!#!The EUROPA (EvalUation of RObotic partial PAncreatoduodenectomy) trial is designed as a randomised controlled unblinded exploratory surgical trial with two parallel study groups. A total of 80 patients scheduled for elective PD will be randomised after giving written informed consent. Patients with borderline or non-resectable carcinoma of the pancreatic head as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, distant metastases or an American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) score &amp;gt; III will be excluded. The experimental intervention, RPD, will be compared with the control intervention, OPD. An intraoperative dropout of approximately eight patients per group is expected because they may receive another type of surgical procedure than planned. Overall, 64 patients need to be analysed. The primary endpoint of the trial is overall postoperative morbidity within 90 days after index operation, measured using the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI). The secondary endpoints include the feasibility of recruitment and assessment of clinical, oncological and safety parameters and quality of life and cost-effectiveness.!##!Discussion!#!The EUROPA trial is the first randomised controlled trial comparing RPD with OPD. Differences in postoperative morbidity will be evaluated to design a future multicentre confirmatory efficacy trial.!##!Trial registration!#!German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00020407 . Registered on 9 March 2020

Flow diagram of studies selected according to PRISMA guidelines [34].

<p>Flow diagram of studies selected according to PRISMA guidelines [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0121187#pone.0121187.ref034" target="_blank">34</a>].</p

Search strategy for MEDLINE via OvidSP.

<p>Search strategy for MEDLINE via OvidSP.</p

Individual trial data, pooled effect estimates and forest plot of the 16 randomized-controlled trials included in the meta-analysis.

<p>CWEPs vs. control with SSI as outcome parameter (RevMan 5.2 output).</p