Higher education has many variants, and the situation of academic staff varies considerably across and within countries.

No abstract

Background The rapid diffusion of wearable electronic health monitoring devices (wearable devices or wearables) among lay populations shows that self-tracking and self-monitoring are pervasively expanding, while influencing health-related practices. General practitioners are confronted with this phenomenon, since they often are the expert-voice that patients will seek. Objective This article aims to explore general practitioners’ perceptions of the role of wearable devices in family medicine and of their benefits, risks, and challenges associated with their use. It also explores their perceptions of the future development of these devices. Methods Data were collected during a medical conference among 19 Swiss general practitioners through mind maps. Maps were first sketched at the conference and their content was later compared with notes and reports written during the conference, which allowed for further integration of information. This tool represents an innovative methodology in qualitative research that allows for time-efficient data collection and data analysis. Results Data analysis highlighted that wearable devices were described as user-friendly, adaptable devices that could enable performance monitoring and support medical research. Benefits included support for patients’ empowerment and education, behavior change facilitation, better awareness of personal medical history and body functioning, efficient information transmission, and connection with the patient’s medical network; however, general practitioners were concerned by a lack of scientific validation, lack of clarity over data protection, and the risk of stakeholder-associated financial interests. Other perceived risks included the promotion of an overly medicalized health culture and the risk of supporting patients’ self-diagnosis and self-medication. General practitioners also feared increased pressure on their workload and a compromised doctor–patient relationship. Finally, they raised important questions that can guide wearables’ future design and development, highlighting a need for general practitioners and medical professionals to be involved in the process. Conclusions Wearables play an increasingly central role in daily health-related practices, and general practitioners expressed a desire to become more involved in the development of such technologies. Described as useful information providers, wearables were generally positively perceived and did not seem to pose a threat to the doctor–patient relationship. However, general practitioners expressed their concern that wearables may fuel a self-monitoring logic, to the detriment of patients’ autonomy and overall well-being. While wearables can contribute to health promotion, it is crucial to clarify the logic underpinning the design of such devices. Through the analysis of group discussions, this study contributes to the existing literature by presenting general practitioners’ perceptions of wearable devices. This paper provides insight on general practitioners’ perception to be considered in the context of product development and marketing.

This study explored and compared the functional status of polymedicated and non-polymedicated geriatric inpatients at hospital discharge. We used a cross-sectional registry of geriatric patients’ hospital records from a multi-site public hospital center in Switzerland. The analysis included all inpatients aged 65 years old or more admitted between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2017 (n = 53,690), of whom 67.5% were polymedicated at hospital discharge, 52.1% were women (n = 18,909), and 42.7% were 75–84 years old (n = 15,485). On average, the polymedicated patients’ hospital lengths of stay were six days longer, they presented with more than three comorbidities, and they were prescribed more than nine medications at hospital discharge (p < 0.001). They showed more frequent general mobility decline (43.2% vs. 41.9%), gait disorders (46.2% vs. 43%), fatigue (48.6% vs. 43.4%) and dependence on lower-body care (49.7% vs. 47.6%), and presented a higher malnutrition risk (OR = 1.411; 95%CI 1.263–1.577; p < 0.001). However, the non-polymedicated inpatients had proportionally more physical and cognitive impairments. The comparison of the functional status of polymedicated and non-polymedicated geriatric inpatients at hospital discharge is important for clinicians trying to identify and monitor those who are most vulnerable to functional decline, and to design targeted strategies for the prevention of functional impairment and related adverse health outcomes.

ObjectiveTo investigate patient characteristics and the available health and drug data associated with unplanned nursing home admission following an acute hospital admission or readmission.DesignA population-based hospital registry study.SettingA public hospital in southern Switzerland (Valais Hospital).ParticipantsWe explored a population-based longitudinal dataset of 14 705 hospital admissions from 2015 to 2018.Outcome measuresSociodemographic, health and drug data, and their interactions predicting the risk of unplanned nursing home admission.ResultsThe mean prevalence of unplanned nursing home admission after hospital discharge was 6.1% (n=903/N=14 705). Our predictive analysis revealed that the oldest adults (OR=1.07 for each additional year of age; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.08) presenting with impaired functional mobility (OR=3.22; 95% CI 2.67 to 3.87), dependency in the activities of daily living (OR=4.62; 95% CI 3.76 to 5.67), cognitive impairment (OR=3.75; 95% CI 3.06 to 4.59) and traumatic injuries (OR=1.58; 95% CI 1.25 to 2.01) had a higher probability of unplanned nursing home admission. The number of International Classification of Diseases, 10th version diagnoses had no significant impact on nursing home admissions, contrarily to the number of prescribed drugs (OR=1.17; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.19). Antiemetics/antinauseants (OR=2.53; 95% CI 1.21 to 5.30), digestives (OR=1.78; 95% CI 1.09 to 2.90), psycholeptics (OR=1.76; 95% CI 1.60 to 1.93), antiepileptics (OR=1.49; 95% CI 1.25 to 1.79) and anti-Parkinson’s drugs (OR=1.40; 95% CI 1.12 to 1.75) were strongly linked to unplanned nursing home admission.ConclusionsNumerous risk factors for unplanned nursing home admission were identified. To prevent the adverse health outcomes that precipitate acute hospitalisations and unplanned nursing home admissions, ambulatory care providers should consider these risk factors in their care planning for older adults before they reach a state requiring hospitalisation.