Search

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Practice guidelines are an important instrument for quality improvement – also in primary care. For years, members of the German College of General Practice and Family Medicine (DEGAM) have developed methodologically ambitious guidelines for family physicians or have been involved in the development of interdisciplinary guidelines mostly on a voluntary basis. Since 2020, the Innovation Committee of the German Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) has announced funding programs for the (further) development of guidelines. Objectives: This publication intends to present DEGAM guideline projects currently funded by the Innovation Committee of the G‑BA. Materials and methods: The concepts of the funded guidelines are briefly described by the authors. Results: In the second round of the G‑BA's call for proposals for the funding of practice guidelines (in 2021), five author teams of DEGAM guidelines applied and received funding. The funded DEGAM guideline projects include (a) the development of a new guideline, (b) the update of two existing guidelines, and (c) the update and upgrading of an existing DEGAM guideline from S1 to S3 level, as well as the update of an S3 guideline as a living guideline. Conclusions: Guideline development is resource-intensive and requires voluntary commitment. The G‑BA funding opens up opportunities for DEGAM to (further) develop guidelines that would otherwise not have been developed at all or not as upgrades. In order to advance guideline programs, additional funding is needed, since the resources of voluntary guideline authors are limited. The G‑BA funding also supports the recruitment of young researchers for guideline development in the medium term. The extent to which this G‑BA support is sustainable will be proven in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Der Radiologe is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Nursing institutions are facing many challenges due to evidence-based requirements. For example, they are required to introduce new interventions such as expert standards and thus adapt routine practices to new findings; however, if new interventions are continuously implemented in the facilities their sustainability is questionable., Objective: The aim was to find out how sustainably the expert standard "Relationship management in the care of people with dementia" is implemented in residential long-term care institutions., Material and Methods: Qualitative, guideline-based interviews were conducted with persons from residential long-term care, oriented to the procedure of the problem-centered interview. The interviewees were involved in the model implementation of the expert standard "Relationship management in the care of people with dementia"'. The data were then analyzed using qualitative content analysis., Results: The participants assessed the sustainable implementation in different ways. Some rated the sustainability of the expert standard in their institution as successful, while others see potential for improvement. According to the participants, the sustainability of continuation of implementation processes is influenced by various factors. These relate to the institution, the external context, the intervention, the implementation process, and the people involved in the implementation., Conclusion: On the basis of the factors identified, key needs can be derived for nursing practice, for science and research as well as for politics and legislation, so that the sustainability of expert standards and other evidence-based interventions can be ensured and, if necessary, optimized., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Palliative sedation (PS) serves as a therapeutic option in cases of otherwise intractable suffering. As the use of sedative and hypnotic medication in many diverse situations is a core competency of anesthesiology, anesthesiologists are confronted with questions of sedative therapy at the end of life in institutions for specialized palliative care, in intensive care units and intermediate care wards. In recent years a number of guidelines have been published internationally but so far no official guidelines exist in Germany. The most recognized document is the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) framework on PS. This project aims to develop a German language template for the preparation, application, documentation and evaluation of PS according to the current frameworks, especially the EAPC framework on PS.Methods: A first draft of the template was generated by the project team using the EAPC framework and individual templates of various institutions, which had been collected during a previous project. Professionals (n = 136) from inpatient and outpatient specialist palliative and hospice care were invited to assess all items of the draft regarding "relevance", "wording" and "feasibility" in an online Delphi survey (Unipark®, Questback, Cologne, Germany). After the second Delphi round an expert panel was asked to reflect the results and generate a final draft. Approval was granted if acceptance exceeded 75% of participants.Results: The 3 rounds of the Delphi process were completed by 64, 46 and 41 participants, respectively. The Delphi process as well as the expert panel led to significant changes of the template. The indications for PS had to be clarified. The significance of documentation of vital parameters, such as oxygen saturation, blood pressure or respiratory rate during PS was intensively discussed. In many teams, predominantly hospice or outpatient palliative care teams, it seems to be difficult to measure these parameters or it is regarded as inappropriate in a palliative care setting. In contrast, the EAPC framework recommends monitoring of vital parameters in cases of intermittent or respite sedation. Finally, a solution was found to support documentation of additional data without the explicit mentioning of specific parameters. After the third Delphi round, all 16 items of the documentation template reached consensus with respect to relevance (82.9-100%), clarity of wording (80.5-100%), and feasibility in practice (78-100%).Conclusion: This article provides an empirically based, multiprofessional consented documentation template for PS. Core elements of the documentation of PS are the indications and the decision process towards PS. During the treatment, at least the level of sedation and the symptom burden have to be recorded. The documentation of vital signs during PS remains a highly disputed topic. The presented data suggest that especially in outpatient settings and in hospices measuring and documentation of vital parameters is uncommon and therefore is often regarded as not feasible. This template can help to support the medically and ethically sound use of PS and facilitate research. The template can be accessed at http://www.palliativmedizin.uk-erlangen.de/forschung/downloads/ . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present paper describes standardised operating procedures (SOP) within clinical sleep medicine. As such, it is a continuation of the previously published European Guidelines for the Accreditation of Sleep Medicine Centres (SMC) and European Guidelines for the Certification of Professionals in Sleep Medicine, aimed at creating standards of practice in European sleep medicine. It is also part of a broader action plan of the European Sleep Research Society (ESRS). In an updated section, the cost-effectiveness of sleep medicine and its relevance for resource allocation of general health care is emphasized. The following section of this paper is the translation of the guideline of the ESRS into German language: Fischer J, Dogas Z, Bassetti CL et al. (2012) Standard procedures for adults in accredited sleep medicine centres in Europe. J Sleep Res 2012; 21:357-368. In the current paper, the SOPs in sleep medicine centres regarding the diagnostic and therapeutic management of patients evaluated at SMC, accredited according to the European Guidelines, are primarily based on prevailing evidence-based medicine principles. In addition, parts of the SOPs are based on a formalized consensus procedure applied by a group of Sleep Medicine Experts from the European National Sleep Societies (ANSS). For the workload of the professionals in different SOPs, consensus was also achieved. The final recommendations for SOPs are categorized either as 'standard practice', 'procedure that could be useful', 'procedure that is not useful' or 'procedure with insufficient information available'. The SOPs described here include both subjective and objective testing, as well as recommendations for follow-up visits and for ensuring patient-safety in sleep medicine. The overall goal of the current SOPs is the further development of excellence in practice and quality assurance of sleep medicine in Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Herz-, Thorax- und Gefaesschirurgie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The German S3 guideline on diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of laryngeal cancer was developed in 2019 as part of the oncology guideline program of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften, AWMF) of the German Cancer Society (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, DKG) and German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe, DKH), published under the leadership of the German Society for Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery. The guideline was funded by DKH as part of the oncology guideline program. Since guidelines are an important tool for quality assurance and quality management in oncology, they should be incorporated into everyday care in a targeted and sustainable manner. The guideline should generally fulfil the interdisciplinary character of early diagnosis, diagnostics, treatment, rehabilitation, and follow-up, with the aim of developing evidence- and consensus-based recommendations and statements for treatment of laryngeal cancer with the aim of organ preservation, but also show their limits. The main recommendations of the original text are summarized. The guideline is available as a long and a short version in the guideline program of the DKG ( https://www.leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/leitlinien/larynxkarzinom/ ) and also as an app ( https://www.leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/app/ ).

Background: People with an indwelling urinary catheter often suffer from complications and health care professionals are regularly confronted with questions about catheter management. Clinical guidelines are widely accepted to promote evidence-based practice. In the literature, the adaptation of a guideline is described as a valid alternative to the development of a new one. Aim: To translate a guideline for the care for adults with an indwelling urinary catheter in the acute and long term care setting as well as for home care. To adapt the guideline to the Swiss context. Method: In a systematic and pragmatic process, clinical questions were identified, guidelines were searched and evaluated regarding clinical relevance and quality. After each step, the next steps were defined. Results: An English guideline was translated, adapted to the local context and supplemented. The adapted guideline was reviewed by experts, adapted again and approved. After 34 months and an investment of a total of 145 man working days, a guideline for the care for people with an indwelling urinary catheter is available for both institutions. Conclusions: Translation and adaptation of a guideline was a valuable alternative to the development of a new one; nevertheless, the efforts necessary should not be underestimated. For such a project, sufficient professional and methodological resources should be made available to achieve efficient guideline work by a constant team.

The German Guideline Programme in Oncology (GGPO) is a joint initiative between the German Cancer Society, the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany and German Cancer Aid. In accordance with the aims of the German National Cancer Plan, the GGPO supports the systematic development of high-quality guidelines. To enhance implementation and evaluation, the suggestion of performance measures (PMs) derived from guideline recommendations following a standardised methodology is obligatory within the GGPO. For this purpose, PM teams are convened representing the multidisciplinary guideline development groups including clinical experts, methodologists and patient representatives as well as those organisations that take an active part in and share responsibility for documentation and quality improvement, i.e., clinical cancer registries, certified cancer centres and, if appropriate, the institution responsible for external quality assurance according to the German Social Code (SGB). The primary selection criteria for PMs include strength of the underlying recommendation (strong, grade A), existing potential for improvement of care and measurability. The premises of data economy and standardised documentation are taken into account. Between May 2008 and July 2014, 12 guidelines with suggestions for 100 PMs have been published. The majority of the suggested performance measures is captured by the specific documentation requirements of the clinical cancer registries and certified cancer centres. This creates a solid basis for an active quality management and re-evaluation of the suggested PMs. In addition, the suspension of measures should be considered if improvement has been achieved on a broad scale and for a longer period in order to concentrate on a quality-oriented, economic documentation., (Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)