Regression analyses of questionnaires in bedside teaching.

BACKGROUND: Students' ratings of bedside teaching courses are difficult to evaluate and to comprehend. Validated systematic analyses of influences on students' perception and valuation of bedside teaching can serve as the basis for targeted improvements. METHODS: Six hundred seventy-two observations were conducted in different surgical departments. Survey items covered the categories teacher's performance, student's self-perception and organizational structures. Relevant factors for the student overall rating were identified by multivariable linear regression after exclusion of variable correlations > 0.500. The main target for intervention was identified by the 15% worst overall ratings via multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: According to the students the success of bedside teaching depended on their active participation and the teacher's explanations of pathophysiology. Further items are both relevant to the overall rating and a possible negative perception of the session. In comparison, negative perception of courses (worst 15%) is influenced by fewer variables than overall rating. Variables that appear in both calculations show slight differences in their weighing for their respective endpoints. CONCLUSION: Relevant factors for overall rating and negative perception in bedside teaching can be identified by regression analyses of survey data. Analyses provide the basis for targeted improvement.

Optimizing Organ Donation: Expert Opinion from Austria, Germany, Spain and the U.K.

BACKGROUND Organ donation-rates using deceased donors and organizational approaches to organ donation differ drastically between countries at a similar level of health care as measured by the Euro Health Consumer Index (EHCI). MATERIAL AND METHODS Expert opinions from intensive care nurses, physicians, transplant coordinators and transplant surgeons from Austria, Germany, Spain, and the U.K. were obtained in semi-structured interviews followed by qualitative content analysis. Results were reported back to all interview partners to identify potential controversies and consensus recommendations. RESULTS No controversies could be detected. On a variety of beneficial factors an interprofessional consensus between interview partners could be reached: A) The relevance of standardization of the screening for potential donors, the family approach and training; B) standards and best-practice procedures should be regulated and supervised by state authorities; C) full transparency and the prevention of scandals is essential; D) overburdened intensive care unit (ICU) doctors need to be supported by full-time in-house special nurses who organize donor evaluation, transport logistics and pastoral care, if required; E) public awareness campaigns are helpful; F) a broad public consensus on the concept of donation after brain and cardiac death is essential; G) incentives for the reporting of potential organ donors are inappropriate; H) an opt-out system alone is not sufficient. CONCLUSIONS Expert opinions from different professional backgrounds from different European health care systems reach a broad consensus on the most relevant issues for the improvement of organ donation.

Nominee and nominator, but never Nobel Laureate: Vincenz Czerny and the Nobel Prize.

PURPOSE: The Heidelberg surgeon Vincenz Czerny (1842-1916) is remembered as pioneer of innovative operations as well as entrepreneur of interdisciplinary cancer therapy. The purpose of this paper is to describe his role during the early history of the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine. METHOD: Based on documents from the Nobel Archive, this paper investigates how Czerny contributed, both as nominee and nominator, in shaping the early years of Nobel Prize history. RESULTS: Vincenz Czerny was nominated at least three times for the Nobel Prize, but he was never selected. Czerny's own nomination letters pinpoint important trends in medicine around the turn of the century. At least seven of the candidates he put forward, became Nobel Laureates. CONCLUSION: Czerny-like many other internationally renowned surgeons during the first decades of the twentieth century-missed out on the Nobel Prize, partly because it is not a lifetime award and his work would have to have been more recent. However, with his nominations, Czerny helped to shape the Nobel Prize to become the most important scientific award worldwide.

No Silver Medal for Nobel Prize Contenders: Why Anesthesia Pioneers Were Nominated for but Denied the Award.

Taking the examples of the pioneers Carl Ludwig Schleich, Carl Koller, and Heinrich Braun, this article provides a first exploratory account of the history of anesthesiology and the Nobel Prize for physiology or medicine. Besides the files collected at the Nobel Archive in Sweden, which are presented here for the first time, this article is based on medical literature of the early 20th century. Using Nobel Prize nominations and Nobel committee reports as points of departure, the authors discuss why no anesthesia pioneer has received this coveted trophy. These documents offer a new perspective to explore and to better understand aspects of the history of anesthesiology in the first half of the 20th century.