Search

The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of inappropriate treatment among hospitalised patients affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection before hospital admission during the Omicron era. This single-centre, retrospective observational study included all the patients hospitalised because of SARS-CoV-2 infection during three periods characterised by the Italian prevalence of an Omicron variant of concern: (1) January–May 2022 (BA.1–BA.2), (2) June–October 2022 (BA.5), and (3) November 2022–March 2023 (BQ.1-XBB). Inappropriate treatment was defined as pre-hospitalisation exposure to antibiotics and/or steroids in the absence of a documented bacterial infection or the need for steroid treatment of an underlying medical condition. A total of 931 subjects were hospitalised: 394 in period 1, 334 in period 2, and 203 in period 3. Of the 157 patients undergoing inappropriate treatment (16.9%), 142 (15.3%) received antibiotics and 52 (5.6%) steroids. The proportion of inappropriately treated patients significantly decreased over time, from 23.1% in period 1 to 11.7% in period 2 and 13.3% in period 3 (p < 0.001), and there was a parallel decrease in antibiotic (p < 0.001) and steroid treatment (p < 0.013). Only 13 subjects (1.4%) received early pre-hospitalisation treatment for SARS-CoV-2. A significant proportion of hospitalised COVID-19 patients were exposed to inappropriate treatment before hospital admission.

Abstract Background Unfounded concerns regarding fever are increasingly observed among nurses worldwide. However, no study has so far explored the preferred approach towards pediatric fever among nursing students. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the attitude towards pediatric fever among final-year nursing students. Methods Between February and June 2022, final-year nursing students of 5 Italian university hospitals were asked to answer an online survey on their approach to fever in children. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were utilized. Multiple regression models were employed to explore the existence of moderators on fever conceptions. Results The survey was filled in by 121 nursing students (response rate 50%). Although most students (98%) do not consider discomfort to treat fever in children, only a minority would administer a second dose of the same antipyretic in nonresponsive cases (5.8%) or would alternate antipyretic drugs (13%). Most students would use physical methods to decrease fever (84%) and do not think that fever has mainly beneficial effects in children (72%). The own know-how adequacy on fever was inversely associated (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13–0.81) with the beliefs that high fever might lead to brain damage. No further predictive variable was significantly associated with the concern that fever might be associated with brain damage, the advice of physical methods use, and the assumption that fever has mostly positive effects. Discussion This study shows for the first time that misconceptions and inappropriate attitudes towards fever in children are common among final-year nursing students. Nursing students could potentially be ideal candidates for improving fever management within clinical practice and amongst caregivers.

Abstract Background Non-beneficial treatment is closely tied to inappropriate treatment at the end-of-life. Understanding the interplay between how and why these situations arise in acute care settings according to the various stakeholders is pivotal to informing decision-making and best practice at end-of-life. Aim To define and understand determinants of non-beneficial and inappropriate treatments for patients with a non-cancer diagnosis, in acute care settings at the end-of-life. Design Systematic review of peer-reviewed studies focusing on the above and conducted in upper-middle- and high-income countries. A narrative synthesis was undertaken, guided by Realist principles. Data sources Cochrane; PubMed; Scopus; Embase; CINAHL; and Web of Science. Results Sixty-six studies (32 qualitative, 28 quantitative, and 6 mixed-methods) were included after screening 4,754 papers. Non-beneficial treatment was largely defined as when the burden of treatment outweighs any benefit to the patient. Inappropriate treatment at the end-of-life was similar to this, but additionally accounted for patient and family preferences. Contexts in which outcomes related to non-beneficial treatment and/or inappropriate treatment occurred were described as veiled by uncertainty, driven by organizational culture, and limited by profiles and characteristics of involved stakeholders. Mechanisms relating to ‘Motivation to Address Conflict & Seek Agreement’ helped to lessen uncertainty around decision-making. Establishing agreement was reliant on ‘Valuing Clear Communication and Sharing of Information’. Reaching consensus was dependent on ‘Choices around Timing & Documenting of end-of-life Decisions’. Conclusion A framework mapping determinants of non-beneficial and inappropriate end-of-life treatment is developed and proposed to be potentially transferable to diverse contexts. Future studies should test and update the framework as an implementation tool. Trial registration PROSPERO Protocol CRD42021214137 .

Abstract Background Health care professionals have to judge the appropriateness of treatment in critical care on a daily basis. There is general consensus that critical care interventions should not be performed when they are inappropriate. It is not yet clear which chances of survival are considered necessary or which risk for serious disabilities is acceptable in quantitative terms for different stakeholders to start intensive care treatment. Methods We performed an anonymous online survey in a random sample of 1,052 participants recruited via email invitation and social media. Age, sex, nationality, education, professional involvement in health care, critical care medicine and treatment decisions in critical care medicine as well as personal experience with critical illness were assessed as potential influencing variables. Participants provided their opinion on the necessary chances of survival and the acceptable risk for serious disabilities to start a high-risk or uncomfortable therapy for themselves, relatives or for their patients on a scale of 0–100%. Results Answers ranged from 0 to 100% for all questions. A three-peak pattern with different distributions of the peaks was observed. Sex, education, being a health care professional, being involved in treatment decisions and religiosity influence these opinions. Male respondents and those with a university education would agree that a risky and uncomfortable treatment should be started even with a low chance of survival for themselves, relatives and patients. More respondents would choose a lower necessary chance of survival (0–33% survival) when deciding for patients compared to themselves or relatives to start a risky and uncomfortable treatment. On the other hand, the majority of respondents would accept only a low risk of severe disability for both themselves and their patients. Conclusion No cut-off can be identified for the necessary chances of survival or the acceptable risk of disability to help quantify the “inappropriateness” of critical care treatment. Sex and education are the strongest influencing factors on this opinion. The large variation in personal opinions, depending on demographic and personality variables and education needs to be considered in the communication between health care professionals and patients or surrogates.