Refine
Document Type
- Article (3) (remove)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3) (remove)
Keywords
- Surgeons (3) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (3)
The teaching of professional roles in medical education is an interdisciplinary concern. However, surgeons require specific standards of professionalism for certain context-based situations. In addition to communication, studies require collaboration, leadership, error-/conflict-management, patient-safety and decision-making as essential competencies for surgeons. Standards for corresponding competencies are defined in special chapters of the German National Competency-based Learning Objectives for Undergraduate Medical Education (NKLM; chapter 8, 10). The current study asks whether these chapters are adequately taught in surgical curricula. Eight German faculties contributed to analysing mapping data considering surgical courses of undergraduate programs. All faculties used the MERlin mapping platform and agreed on procedures for data collection and processing. Sub-competency and objective coverage, as well as the achievement of the competency level were mapped. Overall counts of explicit citations were used for analysis. Collaboration within the medical team is a strongly represented topic. In contrast, interprofessional cooperation, particularly in healthcare sector issues is less represented. Patient safety and dealing with errors and complications is most emphasized for the Manager/Leader, while time management, career planning and leadership are not addressed. Overall, the involvement of surgery in teaching the competencies of the Collaborator and Manager/Leader is currently low. However, there are indications of a curricular development towards explicit teaching of these roles in surgery. Moreover, implicitly taught roles are numerous, which indicates a beginning awareness of professional roles.
Objectives: This study identified potential general influencing factors for a mathematical prediction of implant stability quotient (ISQ) values in clinical practice.
Methods: We collected the ISQ values of 557 implants from 2 different brands (SICace and Osstem) placed by 2 surgeons in 336 patients. Surgeon 1 placed 329 SICace implants, and surgeon 2 placed 113 SICace implants and 115 Osstem implants. ISQ measurements were taken at T1 (immediately after implant placement) and T2 (before dental restoration). A multivariate linear regression model was used to analyze the influence of the following 11 candidate factors for stability prediction: sex, age, maxillary/mandibular location, bone type, immediate/delayed implantation, bone grafting, insertion torque, I-stage or II-stage healing pattern, implant diameter, implant length and T1-T2 time interval.
Results: The need for bone grafting as a predictor significantly influenced ISQ values in all three groups at T1 (weight coefficients ranging from -4 to -5). In contrast, implant diameter consistently influenced the ISQ values in all three groups at T2 (weight coefficients ranging from 3.4 to 4.2). Other factors, such as sex, age, I/II-stage implantation and bone type, did not significantly influence ISQ values at T2, and implant length did not significantly influence ISQ values at T1 or T2.
Conclusions: These findings provide a rational basis for mathematical models to quantitatively predict the ISQ values of implants in clinical practice.
Background: Invasive off- or on-pump cardiac surgery (elective and emergency procedures, excluding transplants are routinely performed to treat complications of ischaemic heart disease. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluate the effectiveness of treatments in the setting of cardiac surgery. However, the impact of RCTs is weakened by heterogeneity in outcome measuring and reporting, which hinders comparison across trials. Core outcome sets (COS, a set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in clinical trials for a specific clinical field) help reduce this problem. In light of the above, we developed a COS for cardiac surgery effectiveness trials.
Methods: Potential core outcomes were identified a priori by analysing data on 371 RCTs of 58,253 patients. We reached consensus on core outcomes in an international three-round eDelphi exercise. Outcomes for which at least 60% of the participants chose the response option "no" and less than 20% chose the response option "yes" were excluded.
Results: Eighty-six participants from 23 different countries involving adult cardiac patients, cardiac surgeons, anaesthesiologists, nursing staff and researchers contributed to this eDelphi. The panel reached consensus on four core outcomes: 1) Measure of mortality, 2) Measure of quality of life, 3) Measure of hospitalisation and 4) Measure of cerebrovascular complication to be included in adult cardiac surgery trials.
Conclusion: This study used robust research methodology to develop a minimum core outcome set for clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of treatments in the setting of cardiac surgery. As a next step, appropriate outcome measurement instruments have to be selected.