Search

Aim: To identify personal beliefs of Dutch nursing staff about encouraging psychogeriatric nursing home residents in daily activities. Design: Qualitative study following COREQ guidelines. Methods: Fifteen semi‐structured interviews with Dutch nursing staff of wards hosting psychogeriatric residents were conducted in Spring 2021. Data were systematically analysed through deductive coding analysis in NVivo. Results: Most nurses indicated to encourage residents frequently to perform activities independently, although many also indicated to take over tasks habitually. Nurses seemed to show sufficient awareness, reflected by adequate knowledge of what encouraging residents entailed and insight in the risks of not encouraging residents. Nurses' motivation to encourage residents seemed high, reflected by expressing multiple advantageous and few disadvantageous beliefs and a high willingness to encourage residents. Managerial support was perceived ambiguous. Self‐efficacy was perceived high, although little time, staffing shortages and resistance of residents reduced self‐efficacy. Nurses were often unable to anticipate such situations and expressed the need of skills, e.g. patience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Heidegger's occasional approaches to ethics are always connected to ontology. We investigate two of his writings (Being and Time, §59, and Letter on Humanism), which belong to the earlier and to the later Heidegger, respectively. Our aim is to show that Heidegger alters, throughout his writings, very little of his opinion concerning the secondary role of ethics by comparison with ontology. Whereas in Being and Time the necessity of ethics is rapidly placed in the realm of fundamental ontology of the Dasein (the most urgent task), in the Letter ethics is called "originary" if it is understood from the ēthos, the living of mankind. But according to Heidegger mankind defines itself by its Eksistenz, i.e. its being-open to the call of being through thinking. The keyword of our text is the German Handlung, normally translated as "action", but which Heidegger understands as "pro-ducing", i.e. Vollbringen, "bringing to the full" the essence of the Other. The primary action of man is thinking the essence of being as of the primary Other. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Komplementaere und Integrative Medizin is the property of Elsevier B.V. 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.)

It is important to study the well-being of patients and their relatives after receiving hospital treatment, as both the healthcare professional and the political attention towards user participation is constantly increasing. In this study, user participation is understood as a way to manage the user's rights, opportunity for choices and human rights through relationships and with their well-being as a common goal. Therefore, the health professionals' understanding of this must be increased, evidence must increasingly form the basis for the chosen actions and the professional management must support a person-oriented clinical practice. The research program's theoretical perspective for perioperative nursing is presented in this article, and it is based on answering person-oriented Fundamental of Care questions and as a methodological challenge to have user involvement as a constant activity. This theoretical and methodological choice guides the continued development of the research program. Perioperative nursing is understood from the time the patient meets the nurse at the time of admission until the time of discharge after the elective surgical treatment is completed. To our knowledge no studies regarding the outcome of FoC for the perioperative patient have been conducted. We address healthcare providers' actions, starting from when a nurse admits a patient until the day of discharge after treatment is complete, and nursing care related to elective surgical procedures in Norwegian and Danish non-university hospitals. The research program seeks insight into the experiences of current and former patients and relatives as well as the healthcare professionals who perform the treatment in Norwegian and Danish non-university hospitals. Based on results from this research program, we expect to be able to increase the healthcare professionals' competencies in Fundamental Care and to increase their openness regarding user involvement, options and human rights for the benefit of surgical patients well-being., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

Background and Purpose: Risk prediction with the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk model is guideline-recommended in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. However, the performance of more contemporary scores derived from ACTION (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network) and National Cardiovascular Data (NCDR) registries remains incompletely understood. We aimed to compare these models in German ACS patients., Methods and Results: A total of 1567 patients with (Non-)ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI: 1002 patients, STEMI: 565 patients) undergoing invasive management at University Hospital Düsseldorf (Germany) from 2014 to 2018 were included. Overall in-hospital mortality was 7.5% (NSTEMI 3.7%, STEMI 14.5%). Parameters for calculation of GRACE 1.0, GRACE 2.0, ACTION and NCDR risk models and in-hospital mortality were assessed and risk model performance was compared. The GRACE 1.0 risk model for prediction of in-hospital mortality discriminated risk superior (c-index 0.84) to its successor GRACE 2.0 (c-index 0.79, p GRACE1.0vsGRACE2.0 = 0.0008). The NCDR model performed best in discrimination of risk in ACS overall (c-index 0.89; p ACTIONvsNCDR < 0.0001; p GRACEvsNCDR < 0.0001) and showed superior performance compared to GRACE in NSTEMI and STEMI subgroups (p GRACEvsNCDR both < 0.02). ACTION and GRACE risk models performed comparable to each other (both c-index 0.84, p GRACEvsACTION = 0.68), with advantages for ACTION in NSTEMI patients (c-index 0.87 vs. 0.84 (GRACE); p GRACEvsACTION = 0.02). ACTION and GRACE 2.0 showed the most accurate calibration of all models., Conclusions: In a contemporary German patient population with ACS, modern NCDR and ACTION risk models showed superior performance in prediction of in-hospital mortality compared to the gold-standard GRACE model., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All authors declare: no support from any industry or third-party organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Since the early 1990s, science has addressed anthropogenic climate change as a health issue. From about 2000 onwards, the scientific literature and evidence on the health effects of climate change has been rapidly increasing. Global warming is now considered an "existential threat to humankind," and leading health organizations call climate change "the defining issue for public health in the 21 century" or a "public health emergency."In recent years, climate change as a health issue has become more and more prominent in health communities on the national and international level.The growing importance of this issue in the international health community and the stages, milestones, and topics of this development are described and what health professionals and health organizations can do to protect health from climate change is demonstrated. The decisive role of The Lancet and the reports of its international commissions, the British Medical Journal (BMJ), and the World Health Organisation (WHO) in setting the agenda is underlined. Important actors, organizations, initiatives as well as new concepts like "planetary health" and "planetary boundaries" are introduced. In the German health sector, however, climate change - apart from niches - has not been much of an issue so far. Neither in the health sector, climate policies, nor climate movement the connections between climate change and health are sufficiently understood, considered, or implemented. A look beyond borders shows what might be possible and necessary in view of the possibly "greatest crisis we have ever faced."The article is based on the author's experience, cooperation, and exchange with parties that are engaged with the issue and on years of literature research. He initiated the campaign of German doctors calling on their pension funds to divest from fossil fuels and is a founding and present board member of the "German Alliance on Health and Climate Change," which was founded 2017.