Are female students in general and nursing students more ready for teamwork and interprofessional collaboration in healthcare?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Interprofessional Education (IPE) is now spreading worldwide and many universities are now including IPE in their curricula. The aim of this study was to investigate whether or not such student characteristics as gender, previous working experience in healthcare, educational progress and features of the learning environment, such as educational programmes and curriculum design, have an impact on their open-mindedness about co-operation with other professions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Medical and nursing students at two Swedish universities were invited to fill in the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS). Totally, 955 students were invited and 70.2% (n = 670) participated in the study. A factor analysis of the RIPLS revealed four item groupings (factors) for our empirical data, but only one had sufficient internal consistency. This factor was labelled "Team Player".</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Regardless of the educational programme, female students were more positive to teamwork than male students. Nursing students in general displayed more positive beliefs about teamwork and collaboration than medical students. Exposure to different interprofessional curricula and previous exposure to interprofessional education were only to a minor extent associated with a positive attitude towards teamwork. Educational progress did not seem to influence these beliefs.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The establishment of interprofessional teamwork is a major challenge for modern healthcare. This study indicates some directions for more successful interprofessional education. Efforts should be directed at informing particularly male medical students about the need for teamwork in modern healthcare systems. The results also imply that study of other factors, such as the student's personality, is needed for fully understanding readiness for teamwork and interprofessional collaboration in healthcare. We also believe that the RIPL Scale still can be further adjusted.</p

Papel dos testes provocativos esofagianos na investigação de pacientes com dor torácica de origem indeterminada Role of esophageal provocative tests in the investigation of patients with chest pain of undetermined origin

RACIONAL: As dores de origem esofagiana e coronariana são bastante semelhantes do ponto de vista clínico, havendo necessidade de exclusão desta última, que ocasiona risco de morte. A investigação esofagiana tradicional de pacientes com dor torácica de origem indeterminada, envolve emprego de endoscopia digestiva alta, esofagomanometria e pHmetria esofagiana prolongada. Esses métodos, embora de grande importância diagnóstica, muitas vezes, revelam alterações, em sua maioria, potenciais para a origem da dor. Os testes provocativos de dor esofagiana, ao reproduzirem-na em laboratório, apontam com segurança a sua origem. OBJETIVOS: Determinar a positividade dos testes de perfusão ácida, do edrofônio e da distensão esofagiana com balão em pacientes com dor torácica de origem indeterminada, e correlacionar os resultados com os testes habitualmente empregados, estabelecendo o ganho no diagnóstico da dor esofagiana comprovada. RESULTADOS: Estudaram-se 40 pacientes com dor torácica de origem indeterminada (angiografia coronária normal), sendo 80% do sexo feminino e média de idade de 54 anos. A endoscopia digestiva alta revelou esofagite erosiva em dois pacientes (5%) e úlcera péptica em um (2,4%); a esofagomanometria foi anormal em 60%; a pHmetria prolongada foi anormal em 14 (35%), com índice de sintomas positivo em 7. A dor foi considerada de origem esofagiana comprovada (índice de sintomas positivo à pHmetria) em 7 (17,5%) pacientes e 19 (47,5%) com origem esofagiana provável (8 por doença do refluxo gastroesofágico e 11 por distúrbios motores). Em 14 (35%) a origem da dor não foi demonstrada. O teste de Bernstein foi positivo em 10 (25%), o teste do edrofônio em 8 (20%) e o teste do balão em 15 (37,5%), sendo que 23 pacientes apresentaram, pelo menos, um teste provocativo positivo (57,5%). Com a adição dos testes provocativos foi possível apontar a dor como de origem esofagiana comprovada em 12 dos 19 pacientes (63,1%) em que a dor era provável e em 6 dos 14 pacientes (42,8%) com exames habitualmente empregados normais ou inconclusivos [ganho diagnóstico de 45% (18/40)]. Dois pacientes com testes provocativos negativos apresentaram o índice de sintomas positivo à pHmetria, totalizando 25 (62,5%) pacientes com dor esofagiana comprovada. CONCLUSÃO: Os testes provocativos permitiram apontar a dor como de origem esofagiana comprovada em 62,5% dos casos, o que representou um ganho diagnóstico de 45% quando comparados aos exames habitualmente empregados, constituindo ferramenta importante na investigação de pacientes com dor torácica de origem indeterminada.<br>BACKGROUND: Traditional methods employed in esophageal investigation of patients with chest pain of undetermined origin includes upper endoscopy, esophageal manometry and pH monitoring. These methods many times disclose abnormalities that can only be enrolled as the possible cause of chest pain. Provocative tests can reproduce pain in the laboratory, establishing its esophageal origin. OBJECTIVES: Determine the positivity of acid perfusion test, edrophonium and balloon distension in patients with chest pain of undetermined origin and compare with results of traditional exams, establishing the gain for the diagnosis of esophageal pain. RESULTS: Forty patients with chest pain of undetermined origin (normal coronary angiography), 80% female, mean age of 54.7 years were submitted to traditional exams and provocative tests. Upper endoscopy disclosed erosive esophagitis in two (5%) and peptic ulcer in one (2.5%), esophageal manometry was abnormal in 60%. pH monitoring was abnormal in 14 (35%) with a positive symptom index in 7. Chest pain was considered of proved esophageal origin by traditional exams in 7 (17.5%) patients with a positive symptom index and of probable esophageal origin in 19 (47.5%) being 8 with gastroesophageal reflux disease and 11 abnormal esophageal motility. In 14 (35%) an esophageal origin could not be demonstrated. The acid perfusion test was positive in 10 (25%), edrophonium test in 8 (20%) and balloon distension test in 15 (37.5%) and at least one provocative test was positive in 23 (57.5%) patients. The introduction of provocative tests allowed the diagnosis of proved esophageal pain in 12 of 19 (63.1%) patients with probable esophageal pain and in 6 of 14 (42.8%) with normal or inconclusive traditional exams what represented a diagnostic gain of 45% (18/40). Two patients had negative provocative tests and a positive symptom index, making a total of 25 (62.5%) patients with proved esophageal pain