Rational prescribing is essential for the quality of health care. However, many final-year medical students and junior doctors lack prescribing competence to perform this task. The availability of a list of medicines that a junior doctor working in Europe should be able to independently prescribe safely and effectively without supervision could support and harmonize teaching and training in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CPT) in Europe. Therefore, our aim was to achieve consensus on such a list of medicines that are widely accessible in Europe. For this, we used a modified Delphi study method consisting of three parts. In part one, we created an initial list based on a literature search. In part two, a group of 64 coordinators in CPT education, selected via the Network of Teachers in Pharmacotherapy of the European Association for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, evaluated the accessibility of each medicine in his or her country, and provided a diverse group of experts willing to participate in the Delphi part. In part three, 463 experts from 24 European countries were invited to participate in a 2-round Delphi study. In total, 187 experts (40%) from 24 countries completed both rounds and evaluated 416 medicines, 98 of which were included in the final list. The top three Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical code groups were (1) cardiovascular system (n = 23), (2) anti-infective (n = 21), and (3) musculoskeletal system (n = 11). This European List of Key Medicines for Medical Education could be a starting point for country-specific lists and could be used for the training and assessment of CPT.
Background: Osteoarthritis is a major public health concern. Despite existing evidence-based treatment options, the health care situation remains unsatisfactory. Digital care options, especially when combined with in-person sessions, seem to be promising. Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the needs, preconditions, barriers, and facilitators of blended physical therapy for osteoarthritis. Methods: This Delphi study consisted of interviews, an online questionnaire, and focus groups. Participants were physical therapists, patients with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis with or without experience in digital care, and stakeholders of the health care system. In the first phase, interviews were conducted with patients and physical therapists. The interview guide was based on the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research. The interviews focused on experiences with digital and blended care. Furthermore, needs, facilitators, and barriers were discussed. In the second phase, an online questionnaire and focus groups served the process to confirm the needs and collect preconditions. The online questionnaire contained statements drawn by the results of the interviews. Patients and physical therapists were invited to complete the questionnaire and participate in one of the three focus groups including (1) patients; (2) physical therapists; and (3) a patient, a physical therapist, and stakeholders from the health care system. The focus groups were used to determine concordance with the results of the interviews and the online questionnaire. Results: Nine physical therapists, seven patients, and six stakeholders confirmed that an increase of acceptance of the digital care part by physical therapists and patients is crucial. One of the most frequently mentioned facilitators was conducting regular in-person sessions. Physical therapists and patients concluded that blended physical therapy must be tailored to the patients' needs. Participants of the last focus group stated that the reimbursement of blended physical therapy needs to be clarified. Conclusions: Most importantly, it is necessary to strengthen the acceptance of patients and physical therapists toward digital care. Overall, fo
LINK
Background: Chronic constipation is common in people with intellectual disabilities, and seems to be highly prevalent in people with severe or profound intellectual and multiple disabilities (SPIMD). However, there is no current widely accepted definition for the constipation experienced by these individuals. Aim: This Delphi study aims to compile a list of operationalized criteria and symptoms of constipation in people with SPIMD based on practical experiences of and consensus between experts supporting them. Methods: A two-round Delphi study with an intermediate evaluation and analyses was conducted. Parents and relatives of persons with SPIMD and support professionals were included. The panel answered statements and open questions about symptoms and criteria of constipation. They were also requested to provide their opinion about classifying criteria and symptoms into domains. Answers to statements were analysed separately after both rounds with regard to consensus rate and displayed qualitatively; answers to open questions were analysed deductively. Results: In the first Delphi round (n = 47), consensus was achieved on criteria within the domains 'Defecation’ and 'Physical features', that were assigned to broader categories. Symptoms retrieved within the domain ‘Behavioural/Emotional’ were brought back to the panel as statements. After the second Delphi round (n = 38), consensus was reached on questions about domains, and for eight criteria (domain ‘Defecation’ n = 5; domain ‘Physical features n = 3). Within the domain ‘Behavioural/Emotional’, consensus was achieved for five symptoms. Criteria and symptoms with consensus >70% were considered ‘generic’ and
