What does “combined patient education” mean in practice – one video instead of two appointments?
In combined patient education, the patient goes through a single patient education video or a single appointment that covers both the surgical and the anaesthetic aspects of the procedure – instead of having to attend two separate clinic visits. The aim is to reduce redundant notifications, waiting times and appointment coordination, especially for patients with a low risk profile, for whom a telemedical consent discussion from home is generally an option.
What speaks in favour of combined patient education?
The organisational advantage is obvious: one appointment instead of two means less effort for the patient and less tied-up clinic capacity for the hospital. Particularly for patients in anaesthesia risk classes ASA I and ASA II, who account for the majority of elective procedures, the entire patient education process can often be bundled without any loss of quality. In addition, parts of the patient education overlap between the specialties – such as general information on the risks of bleeding or infection – which makes a joint presentation easier.
What speaks in favour of separate patient education by specialty?
The “Vereinbarung über die Zusammenarbeit bei der operativen Patientenversorgung” (agreement on cooperation in surgical patient care) between the Professional Association of German Anaesthetists (BDA) and the Professional Association of German Surgeons (BDC), dated 2016, stipulates that the surgeon and the anaesthetist each inform the patient about the measures within their own area of responsibility. This separation is not a formality: it ensures that responsibility for each specialty’s patient education remains clearly assigned to the responsible discipline – even when both specialties coordinate their content. The agreement also states explicitly that disagreements between surgeon and anaesthetist should not be aired in front of the patient – an indication that separate responsibilities also serve clarity within the treatment team. For high-risk cases, the agreement states that joint patient education by both specialties may be advisable – which shows that the separation is not an end in itself, but a standard case with defined exceptions.
How do the two positions compare?
| Aspect | Combined patient education | Separate patient education by specialty |
|---|---|---|
| Organisational effort | One appointment/video, less coordination effort | Two appointments, more coordination effort |
| Allocation of responsibility | Must remain clearly separated within a joint format | Clearly assigned to each specialty from the outset |
| Position under the BDA/BDC agreement | Not excluded, but not the standard case described | Standard case; joint patient education may be advisable in high-risk cases |
| Suitability | Particularly ASA I/II, elective standard procedures | Particularly more complex or high-risk procedures |
How can this be implemented technically without weakening the separation of responsibility?
A combined approach to the patient and separate clinical responsibility are not mutually exclusive in technical terms. medudoc’s workflow engine can present content from surgery and anaesthesia to the patient in a joint sequence and make it accessible in the form of a joint patient education video, while still generating separate IC Sheets, each with its own electronic signature for each specialty. The entire process is documented as a consent trail, so it remains traceable which discipline conveyed which content at what time. Whether a hospital configures this format as combined or separate is an organisational decision by the departments involved – not one that medudoc anticipates technically.
Conclusion
Combined patient education reduces clinic appointments and is often used to good effect, especially for patients with a low risk profile. The BDA/BDC agreement maintains clinically separate responsibility as the standard case. In high-risk cases, joint patient education may be advisable – as a supplement to, not a replacement for, separate responsibility. Both views can be implemented technically if a combined approach to the patient is combined with separate documentation and signature for each specialty – the choice of the appropriate model remains an organisational question for the hospital.
