Skip to main content
main-content

Tipp

Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen

20.10.2020 | original article | Ausgabe 1/2021 Open Access

European Surgery 1/2021

Outpatient before inpatient—the good, the bad and the ugly

Zeitschrift:
European Surgery > Ausgabe 1/2021
Autoren:
Kim Tai Vuong, Laura C. Guglielmetti, Thomas G. Albert, Waldemar Brillat Arce, Ralph F. Staerkle, MD, PhD Raphael N. Vuille-dit-Bille
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10353-020-00656-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Ralph F. Staerkle and Raphael N. Vuille-dit-Bille shared last authorship.
The original online version of this article was revised: Due to a technical problem the article was made retrospective open access.
A correction to this article is available online at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10353-020-00686-5.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Summary

Background

In January 2019 the Swiss Federal Department of Home Affairs defined a group of six selected surgical interventions to be performed on an outpatient basis. The aim of this paper is to assess surgeons’ opinions on patient safety, costs and treatment based on this new regulation.

Methods

An online survey was sent electronically to all 942 members of the Swiss Society of Surgery between August and October 2019.

Results

About half of the participants think the new regulation could harm patients (52%) and will lead to lower patient satisfaction (49%). Whereas half of the participants expect a reduction in health care costs (52%), most expect surgeons to earn less due to the new regulation (82%). About three quarters (73%) of the participants expect the new regulation to negatively affect surgical resident education. More than half (62%) of the participants assume that diagnoses allowing reimbursement for inpatient treatment (such as, e.g., bilateral instead of unilateral inguinal hernia) could be made more generously. Accordingly, 70% assume that the new regulation may result in not necessarily indispensable or possibly unnecessarily extended interventions (such as, e.g., bilateral inguinal hernia repair). Furthermore, most (86%) participants fear that the new regulation could possibly lead to hospitals/surgeons rejecting patients.

Conclusion

Whereas about half of the participants expect a reduction in health care costs, about two thirds fear that more generous diagnoses and not necessarily indispensable or possibly unnecessarily extended interventions could be performed due to the new regulation demanding outpatient care for said surgical interventions.

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Abo für kostenpflichtige Inhalte

Zusatzmaterial
Nur für berechtigte Nutzer zugänglich
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2021

European Surgery 1/2021 Zur Ausgabe