BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Paratonia is a motor problem that develops during the course of dementia. Definitions of paratonia used in the literature differ considerably, which has clinical implications and may lead to an undesirable heterogeneity in study populations. For this reason, we initiated a Delphi procedure with known experts in the field to establish an operational consensus definition of paratonia.METHODS: The Delphi procedure involved an anonymous and multistage approach presented as a questionnaire, with each stage building on the results of the previous one in order to reach consensus on the definition of paratonia.RESULTS: Eight of 17 experts agreed to participate in the study. After 4 rounds, the participants reached consensus on the following definition: paratonia is a form of hypertonia with an involuntary variable resistance during passive movement. The nature of paratonia may change with progression of dementia (eg, from active assistance (aka Mitgehen) to active resistance). The degree of resistance depends on the speed of movement (eg, slow > low resistance, fast > high resistance). The degree of paratonia is proportional to the amount of force applied and increases with progression of dementia. The resistance to passive movement is in any direction and there is no clasp-knife phenomenon.CONCLUSION: The Delphi procedure resulted in a comprehensive, operational definition of paratonia. Future research should focus on the reliability and validity of this definition.
DOCUMENT
Achtergrond: Kwetsbaarheid is een term die veel en in toenemende mate wordt gebruikt in het omschrijven van individuen met een verhoogd risico op negatieve gezondheidsuitkomsten als gevolg van meerdere lichamelijke, psychische en/of sociale problemen. Kwetsbaarheid komt vaak voor bij ouderen. Desondanks gebruiken ouderen zelf deze term niet of nauwelijks. De volgende vragen staan centraal in dit onderzoek: welke woorden worden gebruikt in de Nederlandstalige literatuur en welke woorden herkennen en gebruiken ouderen zelf in het beschrijven van ouder worden en kwetsbaarheid?Methode: De methode was tweeledig: 1) bestuderen van Nederlandstalige grijze literatuur en 2) een Delphi-procedure. Eerst zijn termen uit de literatuur verzameld en vervolgens zijn de gevonden termen voorgelegd aan een ouderenpanel (>70 jaar, N=30). Daarnaast had het ouderenpanel de mogelijkheid om zelf nieuwe termen in te brengen. In drie ronden gaven zij aan of zij de termen herkennen dan wel gebruiken.Resultaten: In totaal zijn 187 termen voorgelegd aan het ouderenpanel. Na analyse zijn er 69 termen behouden die door ouderen herkend of gebruikt worden. De termen zijn onderverdeeld in verschillende categorieën. De categorie kwetsbaarheid komt niet terug in de definitieve lijst met termen, wegens te weinig herkenning en gebruik door de panelleden.Conclusie: Dit onderzoek laat zien welke alternatieve termen gehanteerd kunnen worden in schriftelijke en mondelinge communicatie met ouderen over thema’s als kwetsbaarheid en ouder worden.
MULTIFILE
Aims: In-hospital prescribing errors may result in patient harm, such as prolonged hospitalisation and hospital (re)admission, and may be an emotional burden for the prescribers and healthcare professionals involved. Despite efforts, in-hospital prescribing errors and related harm still occur, necessitating an innovative approach. We therefore propose a novel approach, in-hospital pharmacotherapeutic stewardship (IPS). The aim of this study was to reach consensus on a set of quality indicators (QIs) as a basis for IPS. Methods: A three-round modified Delphi procedure was performed. Potential QIs were retrieved from two systematic searches of the literature, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. In two written questionnaires and a focus meeting (held between the written questionnaire rounds), potential QIs were appraised by an international, multidisciplinary expert panel composed of members of the European Association for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (EACPT). Results: The expert panel rated 59 QIs and four general statements, of which 35 QIs were accepted with consensus rates ranging between 79% and 97%. These QIs describe the activities of an IPS programme, the team delivering IPS, the patients eligible for the programme and the outcome measures that should be used to evaluate the care delivered. Conclusions: A framework of 35 QIs for an IPS programme was systematically developed. These QIs can guide hospitals in setting up a pharmacotherapeutic stewardship programme to reduce in-hospital prescribing errors and improve in-hospital medication safety.
DOCUMENT
