BackgroundContinued aging of the population is expected to be accompanied by substantial increases in the number of people with dementia and in the number of health care staff required to care for them. Adequate knowledge about dementia among health care staff is important to the quality of care delivered to this vulnerable population. The purpose of this study was to assess knowledge about dementia across a range of health care staff in a regional health service district.MethodsKnowledge levels were investigated via the validated 30-item Alzheimer’s Disease Knowledge Scale (ADKS). All health service district staff with e-mail access were invited to participate in an online survey. Knowledge levels were compared across demographic categories, professional groups, and by whether the respondent had any professional or personal experience caring for someone with dementia. The effect of dementia-specific training or education on knowledge level was also evaluated.ResultsA diverse staff group (N = 360), in terms of age, professional group (nursing, medicine, allied health, support staff) and work setting from a regional health service in Queensland, Australia responded. Overall knowledge about Alzheimer’s disease was of a generally moderate level with significant differences being observed by professional group and whether the respondent had any professional or personal experience caring for someone with dementia. Knowledge was lower for some of the specific content domains of the ADKS, especially those that were more medically-oriented, such as ‘risk factors’ and ‘course of the disease.’ Knowledge was higher for those who had experienced dementia-specific training, such as attendance at a series of relevant workshops.ConclusionsSpecific deficits in dementia knowledge were identified among Australian health care staff, and the results suggest dementia-specific training might improve knowledge. As one piece of an overall plan to improve health care delivery to people with dementia, this research supports the role of introducing systematic dementia-specific education or training.

BackgroundDuring the last decade the resistance rate of urinary Escherichia coli (E. coli) to fluoroquinolones such as ciprofloxacin has increased. Systematic reviews of studies investigating ciprofloxacin resistance in community- and hospital-acquired E. coli urinary tract infections (UTI) are absent. This study systematically reviewed the literature and where appropriate, meta-analysed studies investigating ciprofloxacin resistance in community- and hospital-acquired E. coli UTIs.MethodsObservational studies published between 2004 and 2014 were identified through Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus and Cinahl searches. Overall and sub-group pooled estimates of ciprofloxacin resistance were evaluated using DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models. The I2 statistic was calculated to demonstrate the degree of heterogeneity. Risk of bias among included studies was also investigated.ResultsOf the identified 1134 papers, 53 were eligible for inclusion, providing 54 studies for analysis with one paper presenting both community and hospital studies. Compared to the community setting, resistance to ciprofloxacin was significantly higher in the hospital setting (pooled resistance 0.38, 95 % CI 0.36-0.41 versus 0.27, 95 % CI 0.24-0.31 in community-acquired UTIs, P < 0.001). Resistance significantly varied by region and country with the highest resistance observed in developing countries. Similarly, a significant rise in resistance over time was seen in studies reporting on community-acquired E. coli UTI.ConclusionsCiprofloxacin resistance in E. coli UTI is increasing and the use of this antimicrobial agent as empirical therapy for UTI should be reconsidered. Policy restrictions on ciprofloxacin use should be enhanced especially in developing countries without current regulations.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-015-1282-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundThis integrative review synthesises research studies that have investigated the perceptions of nurse practitioners and medical practitioners working in primary health care. The aggregation of evidence on barriers and facilitators to working collaboratively and experiences about the processes of collaboration is of value to understand success factors and factors that impede collaborative working relationships.MethodsAn integrative review, which used systematic review processes, was undertaken to summarise qualitative and quantitative studies published between 1990 and 2012. Databases searched were the Cochrane Library, the Joanna Briggs Institute Library, PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Informit and ProQuest. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for quality. Study findings were extracted relating to a) barriers and facilitators to collaborative working and b) views and experiences about the process of collaboration. The findings were narratively synthesised, supported by tabulation.Results27 studies conducted in seven different countries met the inclusion criteria. Content analysis identified a number of barriers and facilitators of collaboration between nurse practitioners and medical practitioners. By means of data comparison five themes were developed in relation to perceptions and understanding of collaboration. Nurse practitioners and medical practitioners have differing views on the essentials of collaboration and on supervision and autonomous nurse practitioner practice. Medical practitioners who have a working experience with NPs express more positive attitudes towards collaboration. Both professional groups report concerns and negative experiences with collaborative practice but also value certain advantages of collaboration.ConclusionsThe review shows that working in collaboration is a slow progression. Exposure to working together helps to overcome professional hurdles, dispel concerns and provide clarity around roles and the meaning of collaboration of NPs and MPs. Guidelines on liability and better funding strategies are necessary to facilitate collaborative practice whether barriers lie in individual behaviours or in broader policies.

No abstract