Background: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly changed the work of general practitioners (GPs). At the onset of the pandemic in March 2020, German outpatient practices had to adapt quickly. Pandemic preparedness (PP) of GPs may play a vital role in their management of a pandemic. Objectives: The study aimed to examine the association in the stock of seven personal protective equipment (PPE) items and knowledge of pandemic plans on perceived PP among GPs. Methods: Three multivariable linear regression models were developed based on an online cross-sectional survey for the period March–April 2020 (the onset of the pandemic in Germany). Data were collected using self-developed items on self-assessed PP and knowledge of a pandemic plan and its utility. The stock of seven PPE items was queried. For PPE items, three different PPE scores were compared. Control variables for all models were gender and age. Results: In total, 508 GPs were included in the study; 65.16% believed that they were very poorly or poorly prepared. Furthermore, 13.83% of GPs were aware of a pandemic plan; 40% rated those plans as beneficial. The stock of FFP-2/3 masks, protective suits, face shields, safety glasses, and medical face masks were mostly considered completely insufficient or insufficient, whereas disposable gloves and disinfectants were considered sufficient or completely sufficient. The stock of PPE was significantly positively associated with PP and had the largest effect on PP; the association of the knowledge of a pandemic plan was significant but small. PPE scores did not vary considerably in their explanatory power. The assessment of a pandemic plan as beneficial did not significantly affect PP. Conclusion: The stock of PPE seems to be the determining factor for PP among German GPs; for COVID-19, sufficient masks are the determining factor. Knowledge of a pandemic plans play a secondary role in PP.

Background: The use of webcam technology in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) enables parents to see their child when the parents cannot be present at the NICU. The webcam’s use has been gaining increasing attention. Lead physicians and lead nursing staff play a key role in the decision of whether to implement webcams. This study investigates factors that are associated with the readiness for the implementation of a webcam system among lead NICU staff. Methods: A postal survey was conducted among all lead physicians and lead nursing staff in all German NICUs between December 2020 and April 2021 (total N = 416, one lead physician and one lead nursing staff per NICU, N = 208). On the basis of normalization process theory, personal (technology acceptance) and organizational (innovation climate) attributes were chosen to determine their association with the readiness for the implementation of a webcam system. The association of these factors was determined using multiple linear regression models for both lead physicians and lead nurses. Results: Overall, a response rate of 66.59% (n = 277) was achieved. Technology acceptance proved to be a significant factor associated with the readiness for the implementation of a webcam system among lead physicians. Furthermore, staff already working with webcams in their NICUs indicated a significantly higher level of technology acceptance than staff without webcam experience and without any desire to use a webcam in the future. No significant association was found between innovation climate and the readiness for the implementation of a webcam system. Conclusions: Technology acceptance was identified as a factor associated with the readiness for the implementation of a webcam system. The insights from this study can be used to manage potential barriers regarding the readiness for implementation of webcams in NICUs. Trial registration: The Neo-CamCare study is registered at the German Clinical Trials Register. DRKS-ID: DRKS00017755. Date of Registration in DRKS: 25-09-2019.

Introduction Practice assistants represent a highly relevant occupational group in Germany and one of the most popular training professions in Germany. Despite this, most research in the health care sector has focused on secondary care settings, but has not addressed practice assistants in primary care. Knowledge about practice assistants' workplace-related stressors and resources is particularly scarce. This cross-sectional study addresses the mental workload of practice assistants working in primary care practices. Methods Practice assistants from a network of 185 German primary care practices were invited to participate in this cross-sectional study. The standardized 'Short Questionnaire for Workplace Analysis' (German: Kurzfragebogen zur Arbeitsanalyse) was used to assess practice assistants' mental workload. It addresses eleven workplace factors in 26 items: versatility, completeness of task, scope of action, social support, cooperation, qualitative work demands, quantitative work demands, work disruptions, workplace environment, information and participation, and benefits. Sociodemographic and work characteristics were also obtained. A descriptive analysis was performed for sociodemographic data and "Short Questionnaire for Workplace Analysis" factors. The one-sided t-test and Cohen's d were calculated fora comparison with data from 23 professional groups (n = 8,121). Results A total of 550 practice assistants from 130 practices participated. The majority of practice assistants was female (99.3%) and worked full-time (66.5%) in group practices (50.6%). Compared to the other professional groups, practice assistants reported higher values for the factor social support (4.0 versus 3.7 [d 0.44; p<0.001]), information and participation (3.6 versus 3.3 [d 0.38; p<0.001] as well as work disruptions (2.7 vs. 2.4 [d 0.42; p<0.001]), while practice assistants showed lower values regarding scope of action (3.4 versus 3.8 [d 0.43; p<0.001]). Conclusions Our study identified social support and participation within primary care practices as protective factors for mental workload, while work disruptions and scope of action were perceived as stressors.

Background: An increase in regionalization of obstetric services is being observed worldwide. This study investigated factors associated with the closure of obstetric units in hospitals in Germany and aimed to examine the effect of obstetric unit closure on accessibility of obstetric care. Methods: Secondary data of all German hospital sites with an obstetrics department were analyzed for 2014 and 2019. Backward stepwise regression was performed to identify factors associated with obstetrics department closure. Subsequently, the driving times to a hospital site with an obstetrics department were mapped, and different scenarios resulting from further regionalization were modelled. Results: Of 747 hospital sites with an obstetrics department in 2014, 85 obstetrics departments closed down by 2019. The annual number of live births in a hospital site (OR = 0.995; 95% CI = 0.993–0.996), the minimal travel time between two hospital sites with an obstetrics department (OR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.915–0.985), the availability of a pediatrics department (OR = 0.357; 95% CI = 0.126–0.863), and population density (low vs. medium OR = 0.24; 95% CI = 0.09–0.648, low vs. high OR = 0.251; 95% CI = 0.077–0.822) were observed to be factors significantly associated with the closure of obstetrics departments. Areas in which driving times to the next hospital site with an obstetrics department exceeded the 30 and 40 min threshold slightly increased from 2014 to 2019. Scenarios in which only hospital sites with a pediatrics department or hospital sites with an annual birth volume of ≥ 600 were considered resulted in large areas in which the driving times would exceed the 30 and 40 min threshold. Conclusion: Close distances between hospital sites and the absence of a pediatrics department at the hospital site associate with the closure of obstetrics departments. Despite the closures, good accessibility is maintained for most areas in Germany. Although regionalization may ensure high-quality care and efficiency, further regionalization in obstetrics will have an impact on accessibility.

The measures taken to contain the COVID-19 pandemic had a major impact on society, affecting medical care as well as the utilization of medical services. We aimed to identify pandemic-related changes in gynaecologic/obstetric care through the personal experience of practitioners in the outpatient sector in Germany. Three consecutive anonymous online surveys of practising gynaecologists were conducted during the pandemic (07–09/2020, 11–12/2020 and 09–11/2021). Appointment management, medical supply and patients’ demand as well as concomitant circumstances were queried. Data from 860 (393, 262 and 205 from the first, second and third surveys, respectively) respondents were analysed. At the peak of the first COVID-19 wave, more than 50% of the gynaecologists surveyed had cancelled cancer screening appointments. There was a significant association between fear of self-infection and cancellation of cancer screening appointments (p = 0.006). An increase in domestic violence was reported by 13%, an increase in obesity by 67% and more advanced tumours due to delayed screening by 24% of respondents. Primary gynaecological oncological prevention was reduced in supply and demand during the COVID-19 pandemic, and this shortfall should be addressed in future similar situations. Prenatal care has been offered continuously since the start of the pandemic in Germany.