Abstract Background In the Netherlands, palliative care is provided by generalist healthcare professionals (HCPs) if possible and by palliative care specialists if necessary. However, it still needs to be clarifed what specialist expertise entails, what specialized care consists of, and which training or work experience is needed to become a palliative care special‑ist. In addition to generalists and specialists, ‘experts’ in palliative care are recognized within the nursing and medical professions, but it is unclear how these three roles relate. This study aims to explore how HCPs working in palliative care describe themselves in terms of generalist, specialist, and expert and how this self-description is related to their work experience and education. Methods A cross-sectional open online survey with both pre-structured and open-ended questions among HCPs who provide palliative care. Analyses were done using descriptive statistics and by deductive thematic coding of open-ended questions. Results Eight hundred ffty-four HCPs flled out the survey; 74% received additional training, and 79% had more than fve years of working experience in palliative care. Based on working experience, 17% describe themselves as a generalist, 34% as a specialist, and 44% as an expert. Almost three out of four HCPs attributed their level of expertise on both their education and their working experience. Self-described specialists/experts had more working experience in palliative care, often had additional training, attended to more patients with palliative care needs, and were more often physicians as compared to generalists. A deductive analysis of the open questions revealed the similarities and dis‑ tinctions between the roles of a specialist and an expert. Seventy-six percent of the respondents mentioned the impor‑tance of having both specialists and experts and wished more clarity about what defnes a specialist or an expert, how to become one, and when you need them. In practice, both roles were used interchangeably. Competencies for the specialist/expert role consist of consulting, leadership, and understanding the importance of collaboration. Conclusions Although the grounds on which HCPs describe themselves as generalist, specialist, or experts difer, HCPs who describe themselves as specialists or experts mostly do so based on both their post-graduate education and their work experience. HCPs fnd it important to have specialists and experts in palliative care in addition to gen‑eralists and indicate more clarity about (the requirements for) these three roles is needed.
Aim To provide insight into the basic characteristics of decision making in the treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (SSAS) in Dutch heart centres with specific emphasis on the evaluation of frailty, cognition, nutritional status and physical functioning/functionality in (instrumental) activities of daily living [(I)ADL]. Methods A questionnaire was used that is based on the European and American guidelines for SSAS treatment. The survey was administered to physicians and non-physicians in Dutch heart centres involved in the decision-making pathway for SSAS treatment. Results All 16 Dutch heart centres participated. Before a patient case is discussed by the heart team, heart centres rarely request data from the referring hospital regarding patients’ functionality (n = 5), frailty scores (n = 0) and geriatric consultation (n = 1) as a standard procedure. Most heart centres ‘often to always’ do their own screening for frailty (n = 10), cognition/mood (n = 9), nutritional status (n = 10) and physical functioning/functionality in (I)ADL (n = 10). During heart team meetings data are ‘sometimes to regularly’ available regarding frailty (n = 5), cognition/mood (n = 11), nutritional status (n = 8) and physical functioning/functionality in (I)ADL (n = 10). After assessment in the outpatient clinic patient cases are re-discussed ‘sometimes to regularly’ in heart team meetings (n = 10). Conclusions Dutch heart centres make an effort to evaluate frailty, cognition, nutritional status and physical functioning/functionality in (I)ADL for decision making regarding SSAS treatment. However, these patient data are not routinely requested from the referring hospital and are not always available for heart team meetings. Incorporation of these important data in a structured manner early in the decision-making process may provide additional useful information for decision making in the heart team meeting.
LINK
This article takes the 3rd Global Survey Report of the International Association of Universities (IAU) as a starting point. The results of this worldwide survey were published in September 2010. The article discusses four questions from the survey that include internationalisation at Home (IaH) and internationalisation of the curriculum as response items. outcomes of these four questions are commented on and, where relevant and possible, compared to the results of the previous survey, which was conducted in 2005 and published in 2006. It is argued that the sections of the Global Survey that mention internationalisation of the curriculum and IaH use terminology that is not always adequate for the purpose and at times even seems contradictory. The Global Survey includes a question on internal obstacles to internationalisation, which will also be discussed here. These obstacles include the lack of engagement and limited expertise of academic staff in relation to the internationalisation process. The response items for this question do not connect these obstacles to internationalisation of the curriculum explicitly, but it is argued here that a relationship indeed exists. The same is true for issues around foreign language proficiency, which may have a strong impact on internationalisation of the home curriculum. In the conclusion, several additional questions are raised that could serve to get a clearer picture of the development of internationalisation of the curriculum in a global perspective.
MULTIFILE
