Search

The aim of this scoping review is to describe the role, education, policies/regulation, skills and competencies required for advanced practice in paediatric haematology-oncology nursing in Europe, highlighting the differences in development between the different European countries. A scoping review was conducted following the methodological framework of guidelines by Arksey and O'Malley and the recommendations for advancing the methodology by Levac et al. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Scopus, grey literature, webpages, reference lists and performed a manual search, without any restrictions on language or time. The intersection between databases, grey literature and evidence documents traced from the sites of the most authoritative European organisations in the field made it possible to identify the regulatory and training differences between the various countries that were examined. This scoping review highlights how advanced knowledge and competences are used in the care of paediatric haematology-oncology patients, which are strictly necessary for implementing quality care. At present these competences are not recognised in policies and regulation in most of the countries that were examined. It is desirable that all EU member states work to implement a radical change and allow these more competent figures to assist patients in the best possible way., (© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objective: Differentiating Parkinson's disease (PD) from atypical parkinsonian disorders (APD) such as Multiple System Atrophy, parkinsonian type (MSA-p) or Progressive Supranuclear Palsy (PSP-RS) can be challenging. Early signs of postural Instability and gait disability (PIGD) are considered clues that may signal presence of APD. However, it remains unknown which PIGD test - or combination of tests - can best distinguish PD from APD. We evaluated the discriminative value of several widely-used PIGD tests, and aimed to develop a short PIGD evaluation that can discriminate parkinsonian disorders., Methods: In this multicentre cohort study patients were recruited by 11 European MSA Study sites. Patients were diagnosed using standardized criteria. Postural instability and gait disability was evaluated using interviews and several clinical tests., Results: Nineteen PD, 21 MSA-p and 25 PSP-RS patients were recruited. PIGD was more common in APD compared to PD. There was no significant difference in axial symptoms between PSP-RS and MSA-p, except for self-reported falls (more frequent in PSP-RS patients). The test with the greatest discriminative power to distinguish APD from PD was the ability to perform tandem gait (AUC 0.83; 95% CI 71-94; p < 0.001), followed by the retropulsion test (AUC 0.8; 95% CI 0.69-0.91; p < 0.001) and timed-up-and-go test (TUG) (AUC 0.77; 95% CI 0.64-0.9; p = 0.001). The combination of these three tests yielded highest diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.96; 95% CI 0.92-1.0; p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Our study suggests that simple "bedside" PIGD tests - particularly the combination of tandem gait performance, TUG and retropulsion test - can discriminate APD from PD., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Two small studies reported suboptimal therapy adherence in Parkinson's disease. We conducted a larger multicenter European study to assess medicine-taking behavior. Parkinson's disease patients taking dopaminergic therapy were enrolled in 8 centers in 5 countries, and disease severity and demographics recorded. Antiparkinson drug adherence was measured for 4 weeks using electronic monitoring bottles which record the date and time of cap opening (Aardex, Switzerland). One hundred twelve patients, mean age 65 years (standard deviation (SD) 10), with Parkinson's disease for 7.7 (SD 8.2) years completed the study. Total median adherence (doses taken/doses prescribed) was 97.7% (interquartile range [IQ] 90.6-100), days adherence (correct dose days) was 86.2% (IQ 61.1-96.2) and timing adherence (doses taken at correct time intervals) was 24.4% (IQ 5.3-56.5). Fourteen patients (12.5%) took less than 80% of prescribed doses, which was defined as suboptimal adherence. Patients with satisfactory adherence took a median of 8 mg/day (IQ 0-33) less than their prescribed dose of levodopa (P = NS), while suboptimal adherence patients took a median of 481 mg/day (IQ 205-670) less than their prescribed dose (P = 0.0006). The Parkinson motor score was significantly higher in patients with suboptimal adherence at 29 (IQ 20-40), versus those with satisfactory adherence at 19 (IQ 13-26), P = 0.005. Once daily drugs had significantly better adherence when compared with drugs prescribed more frequently (P < 0.0001). Suboptimal therapy adherence is associated with significant deviation from prescribed levodopa doses, despite greater Parkinson's motor severity. Optimizing oral medication intake has a potential role in maximizing the therapy response in Parkinson's disease., ((c) 2009 Movement Disorder Society.)