Open Access

Background: Given both the increase of nursing home residents forecast and challenges of current interprofessional interactions, we developed and tested measures to improve collaboration and communication between nurses and general practitioners (GPs) in this setting. Our multicentre study has been funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (FK 01GY1124).<br> Methods: The measures were developed iteratively in a continuous process, which is the focus of this article. In part 1 “exploration of the situation”, interviews were conducted with GPs, nurses, nursing home residents and their relatives focusing on interprofessional interactions and medical care. They were analysed qualitatively. Based on these results, in part 2 “development of measures to improve collaboration”, ideas for improvement were developed in nine focus groups with GPs and nurses. These ideas were revisited in a final expert workshop. We analysed the focus groups and expert workshop using mind mapping methods, and finally drew up the compilation of measures. In an exploratory pilot study "study part 3" four nursing homes chose the measures they wanted to adopt. These were tested for three months. Feasibility and acceptance of the measures were evaluated via guideline interviews with the stakeholders which were analysed by content analyses.<br> Results: Six measures were generated: meetings to establish common goals, main contact person, standardised pro re nata medication, introduction of name badges, improved availability of nurse/GP and standardised scheduling/ procedure for nursing home visits. In the pilot study, the measures were implemented in four nursing homes. GPs and nurses reviewed five measures as feasible and acceptable, only the designation of a “main contact person” was not considered as an improvement.<br> Conclusions: Six measures to improve collaboration and communication could be compiled in a multistep qualitative process respecting the perspectives of involved stakeholders. Five of the six measures were positively assessed in an exploratory pilot study. They could easily be transferred into the daily routine of other nursing homes, as no special models have to exist in advance. Impact of the measures on patient oriented outcomes should be examined in further research.<br> Trial registration: Not applicable.

Objectives:<br> The aim was to identify theoretically expected as well as actually reported benefits from drug development and the importance of individual patient benefits compared to the collective benefits to society in general.<br> Background:<br> Ethical guidelines require that clinical research involving humans offer the potential for benefit. A number of characteristics can be applied to define research benefit. Often benefit is categorized as being either direct or indirect. Indirect benefits can involve collective benefits for society rather than any benefits to the trial patient or subject. The purpose of this review was to examine which potential individual and societal benefits were mentioned as being expected in publications from government experts and which were mentioned in publications describing completed drug development trial results.<br> Methods:<br> Literature on research benefit was first identified by searching the PubMed database using several combinations of the key words benefit and clinical research. The search was limited to articles published in English. A Google search with the same combinations of key words but without any language limitation was then performed. Additionally, the reference lists of promising articles were screened for further thematically related articles. Finally, a narrative review was performed of relevant English- and German-language articles published between 1996 and 2016 to identify which of several potential benefits were either theoretically expected or which were mentioned in publications on clinical drug development trial results.<br> Results:<br> The principal benefits from drug development discussed included 2 main types of benefit, namely individual benefits for the patients and collective benefits for society. Twenty-one of an overall total of 26 articles discussing theoretically expected benefits focused on individual patient benefits, whereas 17 out of 26 articles mentioned collective benefits to society. In these publications, the most commonly mentioned theoretically expected individual patient benefit was the chance to receive up-to-date care (38.1%). A general increase in knowledge about health care, treatments, or drugs (70.6%) was the most commonly mentioned theoretically expected benefit for society. In contrast, all 13 publications reporting actual benefits of clinical drug development trials focused on personal benefits and only 1 of these publications also mentioned a societal benefit. The most commonly mentioned individual benefit was an increased quality of life (53.9%), whereas the only mentioned collective benefit to society was a general gain of knowledge (100.0%).<br> Conclusions:<br> Both theoretically expected and actually reported benefits in the majority of the included publications emphasized the importance of individual patient benefits from drug development rather than the collective benefits to society in general. The authors of these publications emphasized the right of each individual patient or subject to look for and expect some personal benefit from participating in a clinical trial rather than considering societal benefit as a top priority. From an ethical point of view, the benefits each individual patient receives from his or her participation in a clinical trial might also be seen as a societal benefit, especially when the drug or device tested, if approved for marketing, would eventually be made available for other similar patients from the country in which the clinical trial was conducted.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of different dissemination channels on the awareness and usage of hospital performance reports among referring physicians, as well as the usefulness of such reports from the referring physicians’ perspective. <br> Data sources/Study setting: Primary data collected from a survey with 277 referring physicians (response rate = 26.2%) in Nuremberg, Germany (03–06/2016). <br> Study design: Cluster-randomised controlled trial at the practice level. Physician practices were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: (1) physicians in the control arm could become aware of the performance reports via mass media channels (Mass Media, npr MM=132, nph MM=147); (2) physicians in the intervention arm also received a printed version of the report via mail (Mass and Special Media, npr MSM=117; nph MSM=130). <br> Principal findings: Overall, 68% of respondents recalled hospital performance reports and 21% used them for referral decisions. Physicians from the Mass and Special Media group were more likely to be aware of the performance reports (OR 4.16; 95% CI 2.16–8.00, p < .001) but not more likely to be influenced when referring patients into hospitals (OR 1.73; 95% CI 0.72–4.12, p > .05). On a 1 (very good) to 6 (insufficient) scale, the usefulness of the performance reports was rated 3.67 (±1.40). Aggregated presentation formats were rated more helpful than detailed hospital quality information. <br> Conclusions: Hospital quality reports have limited impact on referral practices. To increase the latter, concerns raised by referring physicians must be given more weight. Those principally refer to the underlying data, the design of the reports, and the lack of important information.

Self-medication is of great public health importance as it often bypasses regulatory mechanisms to assure quality of health care. Nevertheless there are no established standards on how to assess self-medication. We therefore intended to systematically retrieve questionnaires and survey tools used to capture self-medication, with the aim to identify the scope of information investigated in this context and commonalities between the tools. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on questionnaires used for self-medication assessment by searching PubMed and Web of Science databases using the combinations of following keywords; self-medication, self-prescription, non-prescription, questionnaire. Truncation was used to ensure retrieval of all possible variations of search terms. The search was limited to articles published between 1st January 2000 and 31st December 2015, human studies and English language. Duplicate and irrelevant studies were excluded from the final review. A total of 158 studies were included in the review. Studies were from diverse geographical locations, most of the studies were from Nigeria 16 (10.1%) followed by India 10 (6.3%) and Iran 8 (5%). Forty-three studies (27.2%) focused on antibiotic self-medication. Majority of the studies (106; 67%) were done with adult populations. The components addressed by the questionnaires covered: reasons for self-medications in 147 (93%) studies, purchasing source in 136 (86%) studies, medical conditions to be treated in 153 (96.8%) studies, adverse events in 67 (42.4%) studies, use of prescribing information in 24 (15.1%) studies and antibiotic resistance awareness in 20 (46.5%) antibiotic studies. For 74 (46.8%) studies, survey questionnaires were self-administered and most studies (57; 36%) were done at homes of respondents. Thirty-seven (23.4%) studies did not report any recall period for self-medication practices. Study response rates varied from 17.9% to 100%, and while validity of the study questionnaire was reported for 100 (63.3%) studies, 15 (9.5%) studies reported reliability test of the study questionnaire. There is a large variety of questionnaires being used for investigating self-medication practices making comparability and meta-analyses very difficult. It is desirable to have a basic set of standardized survey questions on this topic to make available for future research groups in this field.

The present investigation was conducted to investigate the in-vitro activity of ethanolic extract of roots of Centaurea behens by using DPPH radical scavenging activity, nitric oxide radical scavenging activity, hydrogen peroxide radical scavenging activity, hydroxyl radical. Result suggests that the extract possess significant antioxidant activity as compared to the standard ascorbic acid and thus further in vivo investigation is required to evaluate the medicinal significance of the extract which can be used for assessing the possible therapeutic importance of the drug.