Floods can be approached at a given location with two different concepts in mind: defending against floods or adapting to floods (Saurí-Pujol et al., 2001) (further, the option of mitigation exists, but this is a rather long-term and large-scale approach). First, resistance-based flood protection is the traditional approach to flood risk; second is resilience, which is linked with the concept of flood risk management. Flood protection usually requires dykes, technical flood protection measures, and strong water management institutions with technical skills; resilient flood risk management asks for comprehensive and integrative concepts, encompassing many stakeholders and asking for collaboration at various levels. The advantage of resistance-oriented flood protection is that it facilitates using protected land efficiently without the necessity of making compromises because of the flood risk. However, this approach has boundaries and constraints when flood risk increases, protection measures fail, or extreme floods occur. Thus, complementary resilient flood risk management is necessary, which comes with costs for adaptation and compromises for land use, but allows for coping much better with the management of increasing risk and extreme events because it reduces vulnerabilities.
Background: The number of people suffering from one or more chronic conditions is rising, resulting in an increase in patients with complex health care demands. Interprofessional collaboration and the use of shared care plans support the management of complex health care demands of patients with chronic illnesses. This study aims to get an overview of the scientific literature on developing interprofessional shared care plans. Methods: We conducted a scoping review of the scientific literature regarding the development of interprofessional shared care plans. A systematic database search resulted in 45 articles being included, 5 of which were empirical studies concentrating purely on the care plan. Findings were synthesised using directed content analysis. Results: This review revealed three themes. The first theme was the format of the shared care plan, with the following elements: patient’s current state; goals and concerns; actions and interventions; and evaluation. The second theme concerned the development of shared care plans, and can be categorised as interpersonal, organisational and patient-related factors. The third theme covered tools, whose main function is to support professionals in sharing patient information without personal contact. Such tools relate to documentation of and communication about patient information. Conclusion: Care plan development is not a free-standing concept, but should be seen as the result of an underlying process of interprofessional collaboration between team members, including the patient. To integrate the patients’ perspectives into the care plans, their needs and values need careful consideration. This review indicates a need for new empirical studies examining the development and use of shared care plans and evaluating their effects.
Background: Nursing documentation could improve the quality of nursing care by being an important source of information about patients' needs and nursing interventions. Standardized terminologies (e.g. NANDA International and the Omaha System) are expected to enhance the accuracy of nursing documentation. However, it remains unclear whether nursing staff actually feel supported in providing nursing care by the use of electronic health records that include standardized terminologies.Objectives: a. To explore which standardized terminologies are being used by nursing staff in electronic health records. b. To explore to what extent they feel supported by the use of electronic health records. c. To examine whether the extent to which nursing staff feel supported is associated with the standardized terminologies that they use in electronic health records.Design: Cross-sectional survey design.Setting and participants: A representative sample of 667 Dutch registered nurses and certified nursing assistants working with electronic health records. The respondents were working in hospitals, mental health care, home care or nursing homes.Methods: A web-based questionnaire was used. Descriptive statistics were performed to explore which standardized terminologies were used by nursing staff, and to explore the extent to which nursing staff felt supported by the use of electronic health records. Multiple linear regression analyses examined the association between the extent of the perceived support provided by electronic health records and the use of specific standardized terminologies.Results: Only half of the respondents used standardized terminologies in their electronic health records. In general, nursing staff felt most supported by the use of electronic health records in their nursing activities during the provision of care. Nursing staff were often not positive about whether the nursing information in the electronic health records was complete, relevant and accurate, and whether the electronic health records were user-friendly. No association was found between the extent to which nursing staff felt supported by the electronic health records and the use of specific standardized terminologies.Conclusions: More user-friendly designs for electronic health records should be developed. The poor user-friendliness of electronic health records and the variety of ways in which software developers have integrated standardized terminologies might explain why these terminologies had less of an impact on the extent to which nursing staff felt supported by the use of electronic health records.
LINK
