Search

Background: Physicians in Germany are overburdened. Delegation of tasks to Physician Assistants (PA) is one way of providing relief. Although PA work in Germany since 2012, few data are available. We studied advantages and disadvantages from those physicians point of view, who cooperate with PA since years, as well as working conditions, satisfaction and duration of work processes of PA., Method: Semi-quantitative cross-sectional survey on a course of PA graduates and the physicians they work with since three years. Retrospective analysis of patients´ waiting time and duration of stay in an emergency department., Results: Physicians were very satisfied with PA and reported a high degree of relief from workload. PA were highly satisfied with their job. Processing time in the emergency department was not longer when a PA was involved in patient care., Conclusion: Physicians are satisfied with PA as they are relieved from a heavy workload. More data on effectiveness and efficiency of PA in Germany are needed., Competing Interests: Tanja Meyer-Treschan, Barbara Veltjens, Nabeel Farhan und Julia Siegmüller sind oder waren hauptberuflich an Fachhochschule tätig, welche den Studiengang Physician Assistance anbieten. Ann Kathrin Stegemann, Julia Sebastian und Sarah Hatwich haben Physician Assistance studiert und arbeiten als Physician Assistants. Martin Beiderlinden und Ralf Siepe haben als Ärzte Physician Assistants in ihr Team integriert. Alle Autoren sind daher daran interessiert, das Berufsbild der Physician Assistants in das deutsche Gesundheitswesen erfolgreich einzubinden. Andere Interessenkonflikte, besonders im Sinne finanzieller Abhängigkeiten, bestehen nicht., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The contribution of physician assistants (PAs) to the German healthcare workforce has increased significantly since their introduction in 2005. From five training programs, the number has increased to the current 18, with 560 PAs awarded the PA bachelor of science degree as of 2020. Despite the growth, researchers lack systemic and reliable empirical data that provide insight into the German PA educational and professional profile. The German University Association Physician Assistant (DHPA) undertook the first nationwide cross-sectional survey on PAs in Germany to understand the German PA movement. This survey aimed to describe German PAs' entry into the profession and PA educational and job satisfaction., Methods: PA alumni of all universities affiliated with the DHPA and all subscribers of the Facebook online social media platform PA Blog were invited to complete an online questionnaire., Results: Of the 282 PAs who completed the survey, 77% were female and under age 25 years. Almost all (94%) were employed, predominantly as PAs (91%, 241 of 265), although some held other positions. Most worked full time (87%), with some citing child-care needs as reasons for part-time employment (n = 21). Few reported unemployment (1.4%, 4 of 282). Eighty-two percent said they would probably or very likely choose the same course of study again. Most employed participants found the inclusion of frequent rotations between didactic and clinical training in PA programs beneficial. However, a small number of participants (26.8%) agreed that German PA programs' didactic and clinical teaching objectives were well aligned., Conclusions: German PAs have a high level of satisfaction with their profession and report low unemployment. Improvement in the alignment of didactic and clinical educational objectives to improve academic qualifications and satisfaction emerged as an area of research., (Copyright © 2022 American Academy of Physician Associates.)

Abstract: The first German physician assistant (PA) program began in 2005 at Steinbeis University in Berlin. Since 2005, there has been a rapid expansion of PA education, and 22 German universities have opened or are planning to develop PA programs. In fall 2021, about 1,100 PAs worked in Germany, mostly in the inpatient setting, with a scope of practice focused on delegation and the performance of medical and administrative activities. After completing a PA program, students are awarded a bachelor of science; programs also offer options for specialization. With no formal PA program-specific accreditation processes, the universities are responsible for ensuring the quality and content of PA courses. The profession is not regulated in Germany, and laws to guide PA education and scope of practice are necessary for the further development of the profession., (Copyright © 2022 American Academy of Physician Associates.)

Background: Physicians in training are major contributors to the German health care system. After graduation from medical school, physicians in training qualify for a certain specialty. The workload of physicians in training in Germany is so high that they have expressed their need for support. One opportunity to support physicians in training is by delegating tasks to physician assistants (medical assistants qualified by a specific course of study, graduated from universities of applied sciences). However, there is a lack of knowledge about the qualification of physician assistants and the conditions which allow support of physicians in training by physician assistants in Germany., Methods: Based on a focused internet search, this paper describes the development of the profession physician assistance in Germany and the currently offered graduation courses including their duration and qualification requirements. Furthermore, we present available recommendations for the content of physician assistants' education and characterize conditions for the support of physicians in training by physician assistants., Results: In Germany, physician assistance has been an academic discipline since 2005, the profession is, however, still quite seldom. Qualification requirements and the duration of education are determined by the universities. The aim is to qualify students for several competencies, which enable physician assistants to perform tasks of physicians under delegation. The conditions for delegation to physicians in training and to physician assistants are quite similar, resulting in partly comparable practice. Major differences relate to the so called "physician reservation" or physicians' core area, both of which define tasks that may only be carried out by physicians., Discussion: Integrating physician assistants into a medical team means supporting the specialists by delegating tasks, thus reducing the workload of all physicians in the team, including physicians in training. Currently, there are no data on and no outcomes of the performance of physician assistants in Germany., Conclusion: In everyday practice, health care delivered by physician assistants and by physicians in training is similar, at least as regards activities and tasks that do not need physician supervision., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

Background: The aim of our study was the identification of genetic variants associated with postoperative complications after cardiac surgery., Methods: We conducted a prospective, double-blind, multicenter, randomized trial (RIPHeart). We performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) in 1170 patients of both genders (871 males, 299 females) from the RIPHeart-Study cohort. Patients undergoing non-emergent cardiac surgery were included. Primary endpoint comprises a binary composite complication rate covering atrial fibrillation, delirium, non-fatal myocardial infarction, acute renal failure and/or any new stroke until hospital discharge with a maximum of fourteen days after surgery., Results: A total of 547,644 genotyped markers were available for analysis. Following quality control and adjustment for clinical covariate, one SNP reached genome-wide significance (PHLPP2, rs78064607, p = 3.77 × 10 - 8 ) and 139 (adjusted for all other outcomes) SNPs showed promising association with p < 1 × 10 - 5 from the GWAS., Conclusions: We identified several potential loci, in particular PHLPP2, BBS9, RyR2, DUSP4 and HSPA8, associated with new-onset of atrial fibrillation, delirium, myocardial infarction, acute kidney injury and stroke after cardiac surgery., Trial Registration: The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01067703, prospectively registered on 11 Feb 2010.

Background: Preclinical and proof-of-concept studies suggest a cardioprotective effect of remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC). However, two major clinical trials (ERICCA and RIPHeart) failed to show cardioprotection by RIPC. Aging and gender might be confounding factors of RIPC affecting the inter-organ signalling. Theoretically, confounding factors might prevent the protective potency of RIPC by interfering with cardiac signalling pathways, i.e. at the heart, and/or by affecting the release of humoral factor(s) from the remote organ, e.g. from the upper limb. This study investigated the effect of age and sex on the release of cardioprotective humoral factor(s) after RIPC in humans., Methods: Blood samples were taken from young and aged, male and female volunteers before (control) and after RIPC (RIPC). To investigate the protective potency of the different plasma groups obtained from the human volunteers, isolated perfused hearts of young rats were used as bioassay. For this, hearts were perfused with the volunteer plasma (0.5% of coronary flow) before hearts underwent global ischemia and reperfusion. In addition, to characterize the protective potency of humoral factor(s) after RIPC to initiate protection not only in young but also aged hearts, plasma from young male volunteers were transferred to isolated hearts of aged rats. At the end of the experimental protocol, infarct sizes were determined by TTC-staining (expressed as % of left ventricle)., Results: RIPC plasma of young male volunteers reduced infarct size in young rat hearts from 47 ± 5 to 31 ± 10% (p = 0.02). In contrast, RIPC plasma of aged male volunteers had no protective effect. Infarct size after application of control plasma of young female volunteers was 33 ± 10%, and female RIPC plasma did not lead to an infarct size reduction. RIPC plasma of old female initiated no cardioprotection. RIPC plasma of young male volunteers reduced infarct size in isolated hearts from aged rats (41 ± 5% vs. 51 ± 5%; p < 0.001)., Conclusions: The release of humoral factor(s) into the blood after RIPC in humans is affected by both age and sex. In addition, these blood borne factor(s) are capable to initiate cardioprotection within the aged heart.

Background: Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) has been suggested to protect against certain forms of organ injury after cardiac surgery. Previously, we reported the main results of RIPHeart (Remote Ischemic Preconditioning for Heart Surgery) Study, a multicenter trial randomizing 1403 cardiac surgery patients receiving either RIPC or sham-RIPC., Methods and Results: In this follow-up paper, we present 1-year follow-up of the composite primary end point and its individual components (all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke and acute renal failure), in a sub-group of patients, intraoperative myocardial dysfunction assessed by transesophageal echocardiography and the incidence of postoperative neurocognitive dysfunction 5 to 7 days and 3 months after surgery. RIPC neither showed any beneficial effect on the 1-year composite primary end point (RIPC versus sham-RIPC 16.4% versus 16.9%) and its individual components (all-cause mortality [3.4% versus 2.5%], myocardial infarction [7.0% versus 9.4%], stroke [2.2% versus 3.1%], acute renal failure [7.0% versus 5.7%]) nor improved intraoperative myocardial dysfunction or incidence of postoperative neurocognitive dysfunction 5 to 7 days (67 [47.5%] versus 71 [53.8%] patients) and 3 months after surgery (17 [27.9%] versus 18 [27.7%] patients), respectively., Conclusions: Similar to our main study, RIPC had no effect on intraoperative myocardial dysfunction, neurocognitive function and long-term outcome in cardiac surgery patients undergoing propofol anesthesia., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01067703., (© 2018 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley.)

Background: Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) is reported to reduce biomarkers of ischemic and reperfusion injury in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, but uncertainty about clinical outcomes remains., Methods: We conducted a prospective, double-blind, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving adults who were scheduled for elective cardiac surgery requiring cardiopulmonary bypass under total anesthesia with intravenous propofol. The trial compared upper-limb RIPC with a sham intervention. The primary end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or acute renal failure up to the time of hospital discharge. Secondary end points included the occurrence of any individual component of the primary end point by day 90., Results: A total of 1403 patients underwent randomization. The full analysis set comprised 1385 patients (692 in the RIPC group and 693 in the sham-RIPC group). There was no significant between-group difference in the rate of the composite primary end point (99 patients [14.3%] in the RIPC group and 101 [14.6%] in the sham-RIPC group, P=0.89) or of any of the individual components: death (9 patients [1.3%] and 4 [0.6%], respectively; P=0.21), myocardial infarction (47 [6.8%] and 63 [9.1%], P=0.12), stroke (14 [2.0%] and 15 [2.2%], P=0.79), and acute renal failure (42 [6.1%] and 35 [5.1%], P=0.45). The results were similar in the per-protocol analysis. No treatment effect was found in any subgroup analysis. No significant differences between the RIPC group and the sham-RIPC group were seen in the level of troponin release, the duration of mechanical ventilation, the length of stay in the intensive care unit or the hospital, new onset of atrial fibrillation, and the incidence of postoperative delirium. No RIPC-related adverse events were observed., Conclusions: Upper-limb RIPC performed while patients were under propofol-induced anesthesia did not show a relevant benefit among patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery. (Funded by the German Research Foundation; RIPHeart ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01067703.).