No abstract

The hallmark of medical action in geriatrics is the interprofessional treatment of the patient by a multi-professional team consisting of doctors, nurses and therapists with the aim of treating the patients primarily in a way that preserves their function and thereby enabling them to live as independently as possible. Therefore, at the beginning of every geriatric treatment, there is a multiprofessional geriatric assessment of functional abilities. With regard to successful medical action, this necessarily requires all health professions involved to understand geriatric patients and their limitations. Under ideal circumstances, their competencies overlap. From the point of view of the related disciplines, this means to teach working together with the other professions – interprofessionally – and learning from one another in order to effectively collaborate. After comparing the existing education in geriatrics within the Medical Curriculum Munich (MeCuM) with the European catalog of learning objectives for geriatricians (UEMS-GMS), a deficit with regard to geriatric assessment was recognized in the field of multi-professional training. Therefore, the existing geriatric curriculum of the Ludwig Maximilians University (LMU) in Munich should be expanded to include an interprofessional course on geriatric assessment. This project report aims to show the development and implementation of this course. For this purpose, the model for curriculum development according to Kern was used by the planners to establish an interprofessional briefing. Due to its innovative character, the course received public recognition and is the basis for the expansion of interprofessionalism in the sense of professional cooperation in geriatrics. Establishing interprofessionalism in other disciplines and locations is welcome.

Spinal cord injuries lead to physical limitations, and the resulting levels of dependency and emotional distress have devastating consequences on individuals' oral health. A 46-year-old patient with incomplete quadriplegia due to a complicated medical history presented for prosthetic rehabilitation. The patient's ability and tolerance to be treated in the dental chair was assessed. Prosthetic treatment options were discussed considering his dependency on alternating caregivers. The final treatment plan involved restorative treatment, implant-supported crowns, an implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis and, in the upper jaw, an implant-supported overdenture to allow proper oral hygiene. The dental treatment sessions were performed with frequent interruptions in the dental chair, whereas the implants were placed under general anesthesia in the maxillo-facial surgery department. The final treatment plan resulted in a compromise between the prosthetic recommendation and the patient's wish. The decisive factor for choosing an implant-supported overdenture rather than an implantsupported fixed dental prosthesis in the upper jaw was the inability of the patient to maintain adequate hygiene measures by himself and his dependence on the caregivers. This clinical report demonstrates how special care dentistry can improve quality of life, even in people with severe physical and/or mental impairments. We would like to encourage dental professionals to provide high-quality care for patients with disabilities in particular, and this practice is in line with the requirements of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities.

No abstract