Innovative Evaluation of the Graphic Depiction of a System Professional Practice Model.

Nursing professional development practitioners led the evaluation of the graphic representation of a health system's professional practice model (PPM) based on evolving expectations and key constructs of a PPM. The aim was to capture direct care nurse perceptions to guide adoption of a revised graphical depiction of the PPM. The specific benefit for nursing professional development practitioners is the ongoing relatability of the PPM to nursing for sustainability of clinical excellence.

Randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 48-week study for efficacy and safety of a higher-dose rivastigmine patch (15 vs. 10 cm²) in Alzheimer's disease.

AIM: Determine whether patients with Alzheimer's disease demonstrating functional and cognitive decline, following 24-48 weeks of open-label treatment with 9.5 mg/24 h (10 cm(2)) rivastigmine patch, benefit from a dose increase in a double-blind (DB) comparative trial of two patch doses. METHODS: Patients meeting prespecified decline criteria were randomized to receive 9.5 or 13.3 mg/24 h (15 cm(2)) patch during a 48-week, DB phase. Coprimary outcomes were change from baseline to week 48 on the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living domain of the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-IADL) scale and the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog). Safety and tolerability were assessed. RESULTS: Of 1,584 patients enrolled, 567 met decline criteria and were randomized. At all timepoints, ADCS-IADL and ADAS-cog scores favoured the 13.3 mg/24 h patch. The 13.3 mg/24 h patch was statistically superior to the 9.5 mg/24 h patch on the ADCS-IADL scale from week 16 (p = 0.025) onwards including week 48 (p = 0.002), and ADAS-cog at week 24 (p = 0.027), but not at week 48 (p = 0.227). No unexpected safety concerns were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The 13.3 mg/24 h rivastigmine patch significantly reduced deterioration in IADL, compared with the 9.5 mg/24 h patch, and was well tolerated.

Factors motivating dyspepsia patients to enter clinical research.

One of the most influential factors in science and medicine has been the development of placebo-controlled clinical trials. However, recruitment of patients for clinical trials is sometimes a major problem in clinical research. Successful patient recruitment may be enhanced with a clear understanding of the motivating factors that determine a patient's decision to enter a study. We have developed the Patients' Expectations, Attitudes and Knowledge (PEAK) Program consisting of questionnaires designed to study the factors motivating patients to enter a clinical trial, as well as capturing the experiences of research participants. A total of 247 female patients with dyspepsia (mean age: 43.9; range: 18.0-78.0 years) who entered either of two prospective double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled multicenter trials in the USA completed PEAK Entry questionnaires during the first study visit. Based on their responses, the top three factors motivating patients to join the clinical trial were: interest in receiving investigational treatment with average score (AS) of 4.33 +/- 0.08 (M +/- SEM) on a 5-point scale, possibility of getting skilled professional care (AS = 4.07 +/- 0.09), and altruism expressed as an intention to help develop a new drug for the sake of other people (AS = 3.89 +/- 0.09). Age, ethnicity, and educational status significantly affected motivational factors of patients. These results indicate that recruitment can be enhanced by targeting these motivations in physician/patient communications, informed consent process and advertising for study participants.