ArticleChirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany)2025
[Risky hospital plan-A survey of head physicians in NRW: dramatic effects in visceral surgery].
Article in Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe hospital plan for North-Rhine/Westphalia (NRW) aims to enhance and optimize the quality and efficiency of healthcare in Germany's largest federal state and could potentially serve as a blueprint for the entire country. The State Ministry of Labor, Health and Social Affairs (MAGS) has issued determination notices for the service groups (LG), which were sent to hospitals with final implementation scheduled for April 2025.
methodA consensus-based questionnaire was distributed to 254 chief physicians of visceral surgery departments (CÄ). The survey queried information on age, number of beds, care levels, service groups, centralization, specialization, certification, changes in public perception, continuing education and threats to training authorization as well as the attractiveness of the discipline and concerns regarding junior staff.
resultsOut of 254 questionnaires 108 were returned (42.5%). Approximately 50% of the respondents believe the reform is necessary; however, 32% of clinics were denied allocation of an LG despite having certification. In 45 clinics (42%) no LG was allocated at all. One hospital received an LG without applying for it. Additionally, 80 hospital administrators (74%) reported not seeing any meaningful political strategy behind the hospital plan, 35% of CÄs did not anticipate improvements in treatment quality from centralization, 59 head physicians (55%) expressed concerns that their hospital's public image would deteriorate and 86 CÄs (80%) believed the current training regulations can no longer be guaranteed. Furthermore, 72% of respondents felt that visceral surgery is losing its appeal as a discipline and 48% were worried about their personal future career prospects. DISCUSSION: While the reform is generally supported by the respondents, the implementation method has received significant criticism. The certifications from the German Cancer Society (DKG) and the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery (DGAV) are not consistently recognized, raising doubts about the reliability of hospital services. Additionally, a detailed impact analysis and accompanying research are lacking (e.g., capacity bottlenecks, staff shortages, waiting times, hospital closures). The attractiveness of surgery as a discipline and advanced training in special visceral surgery are at risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.