Diagnostic stewardship is an emerging concept, so far primarily associated with microbiology, specifically antibiotic stewardship. However, its core idea, ensuring ‘the right test at the right time for the right patient’, holds relevance across all areas of clinical medicine. By optimising the diagnostic process, diagnostic stewardship aims to enhance clinical decision-making and promote more effective, efficient and patient-centred care. Key objectives are the reduction of diagnostic errors, namely overdiagnosis, underdiagnosis and misdiagnosis, as well as optimal resource management. The aim of our review was to establish whether and how diagnostic stewardship has been implemented outside the area of antibiotic stewardship.

This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar and Proquest Thesis and Dissertation will be searched using a search strategy based on the population, concept, context (PCC) framework, adding an outcome variable. Studies will be screened by two independent reviewers and reported using the PRISMA flowchart. Included will be studies starting from 2015, which will describe stewardship interventions in different diagnostic modalities. Excluded will be results regarding antimicrobial stewardship. No language restriction will be applied. Information on the definition and application of the concept of diagnostic stewardship, as well as general study characteristics, will be extracted using a previously developed and piloted data extraction form. Extracted data will be analysed and reported using narrative and descriptive analysis.

Ethics approval is not required for this scoping review. Dissemination activities include peer-reviewed journal publication and conference presentations.

To assess the clinical patient exposure of residents over 20 years following the statutory introduction of a maximum working week of 50 hours in 2005.

Retrospective analysis of longitudinal cohorts of residents who worked on the medical wards between 2001 and 2023 or the emergency department (ED) between 2007 and 2023.

Cantonal Hospital of Baden, a representative, large Swiss teaching hospital affiliated with the University Hospital of Zurich.

Residents in training working on the internal medical wards and the ED.

Annual Patient Exposure (APEX) of residents, which is the ratio of annual patients to residents and describes the annual number of patients treated per resident.

We assessed time trends of the APEX in annual cohorts of residents in training on the internal medicine wards (2001–2023) and the ED (2007–2023). We analysed the annual case severity (Case Mix Index and Emergency Severity Index (ESI)), patient age and the length of hospital stay (LOS) as a proxy for changes in the patient population over time and the readmission rate as a quality indicator.

The medical ward APEX even increased by 5.2% from 325 patients to 342, despite the workhour restrictions and the increased number of residents (+90%). Inpatients increased by 100% (from 3250 to 6507). Their LOS decreased from 12.4 to 7.5 days and the readmission rate decreased from 4.2% to 3.3%.

In the ED, the APEX decreased by 21% (from 3261 to 2576), but the case complexity (ESI) and the LOS increased substantially.

In contrast to the general belief, work hour restrictions and the increased number of residents did not reduce the inpatient APEX over 20 years. The reduced APEX in the ED may be compensated by the increase in case complexity and the LOS.

The analgesic and antipyretic paracetamol (acetaminophen) is generally considered safe in therapeutic doses. The most important toxic effect is hepatotoxicity after supratherapeutic doses or in the presence of risk factors (eg, malnutrition, alcoholism). According to the WHO analgesic ladder, a combination of a non-opioid analgesic such as paracetamol with a strong opioid is recommended as step III treatment of patients with chronic pain, despite limited evidence for this approach. The main aim of this study is to test the hypothesis that paracetamol does not provide clinically relevant benefits when added to strong opioids in patients with chronic pain.

Investigator-initiated, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial at two Swiss hospitals. A total of 140 patients with chronic pain requiring strong opioids and paracetamol ≥1.5 g/day for at least 7 days will be enrolled and randomised to either continued combination treatment or strong opioid plus placebo. In the first study phase (days 1–7), patients receive identically looking capsules containing either paracetamol at the exact dose previously used or a placebo. During a second study phase (days 7–14), all patients stop the blinded study medication (paracetamol and placebo) with follow-up to day 14. Adherence will be assessed by pill count and measurement of paracetamol and opioid serum concentrations. Patients are instructed to use a pain diary daily during the whole study. The primary outcome is the average pain score on day 7 using a 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS). A difference between groups of ≤8 mm will be considered clinically irrelevant. Secondary outcomes will include VAS pain score on day 14, number of opioid rescue doses used, subjective ratings of overall feeling of well-being, quality of life, nausea/vomiting, drowsiness and constipation, and other adverse events, and potential effects of study drug concentrations and opioid receptor and cytochrome P450 (CYP) genotypes on the observed differences.

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee (Ethikkommission Bern, reference number 2021-01518) and the Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products (Swissmedic, reference number 701286). Results will be published in open-access policy peer-reviewed journals. The study is funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant number 32 003B_201072).

NCT05088876.

Prehospital notification by emergency medical services (EMS) can activate hospital resources before the patient arrives, which has been shown to improve in-hospital care for stroke patients. Optimising prehospital and handover processes in stroke care requires considering end-user perspectives to enhance acceptance and effectiveness of the developed solutions. The aim of this study was to identify current barriers in the preclinical-clinical phase of stroke care.

Within the investigator-initiated CAEHR project (CArdiovascular diseases—Enhancing Healthcare through cross-sectoral Routine data integration), an interface for transferring data from the electronic prenotification system to the hospital information system is implemented. A mixed-methods approach with semi-structured interviews as well as a cross-sectional online survey was used to gather feedback from healthcare professionals at a single stroke centre in Germany as well as from the participating EMS personnel. Data collection for the interviews was conducted between January and August 2023 and for the online survey between May and September 2023.

Interviews were conducted with 10 healthcare professionals, including seven from the neurological clinic and three from EMS. Additionally, 39 EMS employees took part in a cross-sectional online survey.

Challenges identified were educational and training aspects affecting preclinical processes and patient handover procedures, along with the opportunity for establishing more uniform protocols. Participants emphasised the importance of detailed patient information. Electronic prenotification was seen as an important step regarding structured information transmission, reducing the risk of information loss in stroke care.

The study highlights the importance of addressing organisational processes in addition to technical interfaces for implementing effective stroke care processes.

German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00029103.