[Planetary Health in the mandatory undergraduate medical curriculum - A qualitative study to evaluate a teaching/learning intervention]. / Planetary Health in der curricularen Lehre im Fach Humanmedizin ­ eine qualitative Studie zur Evaluation einer Lehr-/Lernintervention.

INTRODUCTION: Climate change is the greatest threat to human health and therefore has a direct impact on the work of physicians. At the same time, the health sector is also an originator of pollutants that burden the climate. The concept of Planetary Health describes, among other things, ways in which the health sector can counter the effects of climate change. Nevertheless, the inclusion of contents on sustainable action in the education of health professionals has not been made mandatory to date. The aim of this study is to answer the question of how an intervention has to be designed so that medical students specifically develop an interest in dealing with the topic on their own. METHODS: The intervention consisted ofFor evaluation purposes, a qualitative study with guided focus group interviews of attendees was conducted. The fully transcribed focus group transcripts were analysed using Mayring's structuring qualitative content analysis. Additionally, we checked the semester evaluation for feedback on the intervention. RESULTS: Four focus groups comprising n = 14 medical students (11 female, 3 male) were conducted. Dealing with Planetary Health as a topic during medical education was considered relevant. The partially restrained to negative reaction of the teaching practice staff involved to the checklist had a demotivating effect. A lack of time was given as a further reason for not dealing with the topic independently. Participants suggested integrating specific Planetary Health content in mandatory courses and considered environmental medicine to be especially suited. As a didactic method, case-based working in small groups seemed to be particularly appropriate. In the semester evaluation, we found both approving and critical commentaries. DISCUSSION: Participants considered Planetary Health a relevant topic in the context of medical education. The intervention proved to be of limited use in motivating students to deal with the topic independently. A longitudinal integration of the topic in the medical curriculum seems to be appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: From the students' perspective, it is important to teach and acquire knowledge and skills regarding to Planetary Health in the future. Despite a high level of interest, additional offers are not being utilised due to a lack of time and should therefore be made part of the mandatory curriculum, where possible.

General practitioners' views on (long-term) prescription and use of problematic and potentially inappropriate medication for oldest-old patients-A qualitative interview study with GPs (CIM-TRIAD study).

BACKGROUND: Potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) is defined as medication with uncertain therapeutic effects and/or potential adverse drug reactions outweighing the clinical benefits. The prescription rate of PIM for oldest-old patients is high despite the existence of lists of PIM (e.g. the PRISCUS list) and efforts to raise awareness. This study aims at identifying general practitioners' views on PIM and aspects affecting the (long-term) use of PIM. METHODS: As part of the CIM-TRIAD study, we conducted semi-structured, qualitative interviews with 47 general practitioners, discussing 25 patients with and 22 without PIM (according to the PRISCUS list). The interview guideline included generic and patient-specific questions. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. We content analyzed the interviews using deductive and inductive category development. RESULTS: The majority of the general practitioners were not aware of the PRISCUS list. Agents deemed potentially inappropriate from the general practitioners' point of view and the PRISCUS list are not completely superimposable. General practitioners named their criteria to identify appropriate medication for elderly patients (e.g. renal function, cognitive state) and emphasized the importance of monitoring. We identified prescription- (e.g. benzodiazepines on alternative private prescription), medication- (e.g. subjective perception that PIM has no alternative), general practitioner- (e.g. general practitioner relies on specialists), patient- (e.g. "demanding high-user", positive subjective benefit-risk-ratio) and system-related aspects (e.g. specialists lacking holistic view, interface problems) related to the (long term) use of PIM. CONCLUSIONS: While the PRISCUS list does not seem to play a decisive role in general practice, general practitioners are well aware of risks associated with PIM. Our study identifies some starting points for a safer handling of PIM, e.g. stronger dissemination of the PRISCUS list, better compensation of medication reviews, "positive lists", adequate patient information, multifaceted interventions and improved communication between general practitioners and specialists.