Suchergebnisse

Chronic diseases (TM), to date, a burden globally, putting patients in greater need prolonged medical support. CMs are long-term (over 6 months) chronic conditions that evolve and persist over time. They require care for more than 6 months (cardiovascular, oncological diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, diabetes and HIV / AIDS), are responsible for 63% death. Relatively little reliable information about these diseases is available. Lists containing the major chronic diseases exist but they are scalable and do not always agree ; Peer reviewed

Perceptions of families who take care of patients suffering from advanced illness are rarely considered in Kinshasa medical practices; nevertheless, these families are the main actors involved in such care. The objective of this present study was to illustrate, in a Congolese context, the perceptions of families on the care of patients suffering from advanced illness, and to identify the possible aids provided by healthcare facilities. ; Peer reviewed

Chronic illnesses are a major public health problem in low-income countries. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), few data are available, especially in palliative care. In this context, the present study aimed at describing the patterns of diseases in Kinshasa hospitals as well as risk factors associated with patients' evolving status and length of hospital stay. ; Peer reviewed

Abstract Background In order to address the challenges of an ageing population the Belgian government decided to allocate resources to the creation of geriatric day hospitals (GDHs). Although GDHs are meant to be a strategy to support general practitioners (GPs) caring for the frail elderly, few Belgian GPs seem to refer to a GDH. This study aims to explore the barriers and facilitating factors of GPs' referral to GDHs. Methods A qualitative study using focus group discussions (FGDs) was conducted. Fifteen FGDs were organized in the different Belgian regions (Flanders, Wallonia, Brussels). Results Contextual factors such as the unsatisfactory cooperation between hospital and GPs and organizational barriers such as the lack of communication on referral procedures between hospital and primary health care (PHC) were identified. Lack of basic knowledge about the concept or the local organization of GDH seemed to be a problem. Unclear task descriptions, responsibilities and activities of a GDH formed prominent points of discussion in all FGDs. Nevertheless a lot of possible advantages and disadvantages of GDHs for the patient and for the GP were mentioned. Conclusions In the case of poor referral to GDHs, focusing on improving overall collaboration between primary and secondary health care is essential. This can be achieved by actively delivering adequate information, permanent communication and more involvement of PHC in the organization and functioning of GDHs. The absence of a transparent health care system with delineated role definitions, seems to hinder the integration of new initiatives like GDHs in the care process. Strategies to enhance referral to GDHs should use a comprehensive approach.

BACKGROUND: In order to address the challenges of an ageing population the Belgian government decided to allocate resources to the creation of geriatric day hospitals (GDHs). Although GDHs are meant to be a strategy to support general practitioners (GPs) caring for the frail elderly, few Belgian GPs seem to refer to a GDH. This study aims to explore the barriers and facilitating factors of GPs' referral to GDHs. METHODS: A qualitative study using focus group discussions (FGDs) was conducted. Fifteen FGDs were organized in the different Belgian regions (Flanders, Wallonia, Brussels). RESULTS: Contextual factors such as the unsatisfactory cooperation between hospital and GPs and organizational barriers such as the lack of communication on referral procedures between hospital and primary health care (PHC) were identified. Lack of basic knowledge about the concept or the local organization of GDH seemed to be a problem. Unclear task descriptions, responsibilities and activities of a GDH formed prominent points of discussion in all FGDs. Nevertheless a lot of possible advantages and disadvantages of GDHs for the patient and for the GP were mentioned. CONCLUSIONS: In the case of poor referral to GDHs, focusing on improving overall collaboration between primary and secondary health care is essential. This can be achieved by actively delivering adequate information, permanent communication and more involvement of PHC in the organization and functioning of GDHs. The absence of a transparent health care system with delineated role definitions, seems to hinder the integration of new initiatives like GDHs in the care process. Strategies to enhance referral to GDHs should use a comprehensive approach. ; Peer reviewed

WOS: 000462615200022 ; PubMed ID: 30423032 ; the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS-GMS) recommendations for training in Geriatric Medicine were published in 1993. The practice of Geriatric Medicine has developed considerably since then and it has therefore become necessary to update these recommendations. under the auspices of the UEMS-GMS, the European Geriatric Medicine Society (EuGMS) and the European Academy of Medicine of Ageing (EAMA), a group of experts, representing all member states of the respective bodies developed a new framework for education and training of specialists in Geriatric Medicine using a modified Delphi technique. Thirty-two expert panel members from 30 different countries participated in the process comprising three Delphi rounds for consensus. The process was led by five facilitators. the final recommendations include four different domains: General Considerations on the structure and aim of the syllabus as well as quality indicators for training (6 sub-items), Knowledge in patient care (36 sub-items), Additional Skills and Attitude required for a Geriatrician (9 sub-items) and a domain on Assessment of postgraduate education: which items are important for the transnational comparison process (1 item). the current publication describes the development of the new recommendations endorsed by UEMS-GMS, EuGMS and EAMA as minimum training requirements to become a geriatrician at specialist level in EU member states. ; EUGMS ; The project was supported by EUGMS by a restricted grant in 2017, which was used to support the administrative work during the Delphi procedure.

Background: the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS-GMS) recommendations for training in Geriatric Medicine were published in 1993. The practice of Geriatric Medicine has developed considerably since then and it has therefore become necessary to update these recommendations. Methods: under the auspices of the UEMS-GMS, the European Geriatric Medicine Society (EuGMS) and the European Academy of Medicine of Ageing (EAMA), a group of experts, representing all member states of the respective bodies developed a new framework for education and training of specialists in Geriatric Medicine using a modified Delphi technique. Thirty-two expert panel members from 30 different countries participated in the process comprising three Delphi rounds for consensus. The process was led by five facilitators. Results: the final recommendations include four different domains: 'General Considerations' on the structure and aim of the syllabus as well as quality indicators for training (6 sub-items), 'Knowledge in patient care' (36 sub-items), 'Additional Skills and Attitude required for a Geriatrician' (9 sub-items) and a domain on 'Assessment of postgraduate education: which items are important for the transnational comparison process' (1 item). Conclusion: the current publication describes the development of the new recommendations endorsed by UEMS-GMS, EuGMS and EAMA as minimum training requirements to become a geriatrician at specialist level in EU member states.

To access publisher's full text version of this article, please click on the hyperlink in Additional Links field or click on the hyperlink at the top of the page marked Download ; the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS-GMS) recommendations for training in Geriatric Medicine were published in 1993. The practice of Geriatric Medicine has developed considerably since then and it has therefore become necessary to update these recommendations. under the auspices of the UEMS-GMS, the European Geriatric Medicine Society (EuGMS) and the European Academy of Medicine of Ageing (EAMA), a group of experts, representing all member states of the respective bodies developed a new framework for education and training of specialists in Geriatric Medicine using a modified Delphi technique. Thirty-two expert panel members from 30 different countries participated in the process comprising three Delphi rounds for consensus. The process was led by five facilitators. the final recommendations include four different domains: 'General Considerations' on the structure and aim of the syllabus as well as quality indicators for training (6 sub-items), 'Knowledge in patient care' (36 sub-items), 'Additional Skills and Attitude required for a Geriatrician' (9 sub-items) and a domain on 'Assessment of postgraduate education: which items are important for the transnational comparison process' (1 item). the current publication describes the development of the new recommendations endorsed by UEMS-GMS, EuGMS and EAMA as minimum training requirements to become a geriatrician at specialist level in EU member states. ; EUGMS

Background: The European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS-GMS) recommendations for training in Geriatric Medicine were published in 1993. The practice of Geriatric Medicine has developed considerably since then and it has therefore become necessary to update these recommendations.Methods: Under the auspices of the UEMS-GMS, the European Geriatric Medicine Society (EuGMS) and the European Academy of Medicine of Ageing (EAMA), a group of experts, representing all member states of the respective bodies developed a new framework for education and training of specialists in Geriatric Medicine using a modified Delphi technique. 32 expert panel members from 30 different countries participated in the process comprising three Delphi rounds for consensus. The process was led by five facilitators.Results: The final recommendations include four different domains: "General Considerations" on the structure and aim of the syllabus as well as quality indicators for training (6 sub-items), "Knowledge in patient care" (36 sub-items), "Additional Skills and Attitude required for a Geriatrician" (9 sub-items) and a domain on "Assessment of postgraduate education: which items are important for the transnational comparison process" (1 item).Conclusion: The current publication describes the development of the new recommendations endorsed by UEMS-GMS, EuGMS and EAMA as minimum training requirements to become a geriatrician at specialist level in EU member states.