Practice management considerations /

Mode of access: Internet.

Il ruolo della Narrative in Medical Ethics, Medical Practice e Medical Education. Elementi di ricerca

La mia tesi di dottorato ha ad oggetto lo studio e l’analisi del ruolo della Narrative all’interno di tre ambiti, quali Medical Ethics, Clinical Practice e Medical Education. La tesi è strutturata in 4 capitoli: i primi tre vanno a comporre la parte teorica mentre nel quarto capitolo viene riportata una ricerca sul campo da me svolta negli Stati Uniti. Nel primo capitolo, analizzo il ruolo della narrative all’interno della Medical Ethics specificando che cosa si intenda con etica narrativa, quali sono le motivazione alla base del suo sviluppo e chi sono i suoi principali esponenti. In questo capitolo, inoltre, esamino i problemi che l’etica narrativa solleva suggerendo un nuovo modo in cui essa si integra alla riflessione bioetica. Il secondo capitolo è dedicato al contributo della narrative nella Medical Practice investigando sia le modalità attraverso le quali il paziente può avvalersi della narrazione per analizzare la sua esperienza di malattia sia la cosiddetta Medicina Narrativa. Il terzo capitolo è dedicato all'analisi delle Medical Humanities, ossia di quelle discipline che all’interno della Medical Education si stanno rivelando strumenti efficaci per una formazione più equilibrata e completa dei professionisti della salute. Il quarto capitolo, invece, è dedicato alla descrizione di una ricerca svolta presso l’University of California – Irvine . Durante questa esperienza ho frequentato i corsi del Program in Medical Humanities and Arts diretto dalla Prof.ssa J. Shapiro, (programma in vigore da 13 anni e implementato allo scopo di migliorare alcune competenze nei futuri medici quali: l'empatia, l’altruismo, la compassione e la predisposizione alla cura verso i pazienti, oltre che per affinare le comunicazione clinica e la capacità di osservazione) e intervistato gli studenti che hanno preso parte a queste lezioni.

The National Health Service Corps practice management guide book.

Prepared under a contract for the National Health Service Corps by Family Health Care, Inc.

Book on the physician himself, and things that concern his reputation and success.

Includes index.

The effectiveness of health education using the teach-back method on adherence and self-management in chronic disease: A systematic review protocol

Review question/objective What is the effect of using the teach-back method for health education to improve adherence to treatment regimen and self-management in chronic disease? Inclusion criteria Types of participants This review will consider all studies that include adult patients (aged 18 years and over) in any healthcare setting, either as inpatients (eg acute care, medical and surgical wards) or those who attend primary health care, family medical practice, general medical practice, clinics, outpatient departments, rehabilitation or community settings. Participants need to have been diagnosed as having one or more chronic diseases including heart failure, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, respiratory disease, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, arthritis, epilepsy or a mental health condition. Studies that include seriously ill patients, and/or those who have impairments in verbal communication and cognitive function will be excluded. Types of intervention This review will consider studies that investigate the use of the teach-back method alone or in combination with other supporting education, either in routine or research intervention education programs; regardless of how long the programs were and whether or not a follow-up was conducted. The intervention could be delivered by any healthcare professional. The comparator will be any health education for chronic disease that does not include the teach-back method. Types of outcomes Primary outcomes of interest are disease-specific knowledge, adherence, and self-management knowledge, behavior and skills measured using patient report, nursing observation or validated measurement scales. Secondary outcomes include knowledge retention, self-efficacy, hospital readmission, hospitalization, and quality of life, also measured using patient report, nursing observation, hospital records or validated measurement scales.

How do Australian podiatrists manage patients with diabetes The Australian diabetic foot management survey

Background Diabetic foot complications are the leading cause of lower extremity amputation and diabetes-related hospitalisation in Australia. Studies demonstrate significant reductions in amputations and hospitalisation when health professionals implement best practice management. Whilst other nations have surveyed health professionals on specific diabetic foot management, to the best of the authors’ knowledge this appears not to have occurred in Australia. The primary aim of this study was to examine Australian podiatrists’ diabetic foot management compared with best practice recommendations by the Australian National Health Medical Research Council. Methods A 36-item Australian Diabetic Foot Management survey, employing seven-point Likert scales (0 = Never; 7 = Always) to measure multiple aspects of best practice diabetic foot management was developed. The survey was briefly tested for face and content validity. The survey was electronically distributed to Australian podiatrists via professional associations. Demographics including sex, years treating patients with diabetes, employment-sector and patient numbers were also collected. Chi-squared and Mann Whitney U tests were used to test differences between sub-groups. Results Three hundred and eleven podiatrists responded; 222 (71%) were female, 158 (51%) from the public sector and 11–15 years median experience. Participants reported treating a median of 21–30 diabetes patients each week, including 1–5 with foot ulcers. Overall, participants registered median scores of at least “very often” (>6) in their use of most items covering best practice diabetic foot management. Notable exceptions were: “never” (1 (1 – 3)) using total contact casting, “sometimes” (4 (2 – 5)) performing an ankle brachial index, “sometimes” (4 (1 – 6)) using University of Texas Wound Classification System, and “sometimes” (4 (3 – 6) referring to specialist multi-disciplinary foot teams. Public sector podiatrists reported higher use or access on all those items compared to private sector podiatrists (p < 0.01). Conclusions This study provides the first baseline information on Australian podiatrists’ adherence to best practice diabetic foot guidelines. It appears podiatrists manage large caseloads of people with diabetes and are generally implementing best practice guidelines recommendations with some notable exceptions. Further studies are required to identify barriers to implementing these recommendations to ensure all Australians with diabetes have access to best practice care to prevent amputations.

Medical data management /

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.