Search

ObjectiveThe patient–physician relationship impacts patients’ experiences and health outcomes. Physician attire is a form of nonverbal communication that influences this relationship. Prior studies examining attire preferences suffered from heterogeneous measurement and limited context. We thus performed a multicentre, cross-sectional study using a standardised survey instrument to compare patient preferences for physician dress in international settings.Setting20 hospitals and healthcare practices in Italy, Japan, Switzerland and the USA.ParticipantsConvenience sample of 9171 adult patients receiving care in academic hospitals, general medicine clinics, specialty clinics and ophthalmology practices.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe survey was randomised and included photographs of a male or female physician dressed in assorted forms of attire. The primary outcome measure was attire preference, comprised of composite ratings across five domains: how knowledgeable, trustworthy, caring and approachable the physician appeared, and how comfortable the respondent felt. Secondary outcome measures included variation in preferences by country, physician type and respondent characteristics.ResultsThe highest rated forms of attire differed by country, although each most preferred attire with white coat. Low ratings were conferred on attire extremes (casual and business suit). Preferences were more uniform for certain physician types. For example, among all respondents, scrubs garnered the highest rating for emergency department physicians (44.2%) and surgeons (42.4%). However, attire preferences diverged for primary care and hospital physicians. All types of formal attire were more strongly preferred in the USA than elsewhere. Respondent age influenced preferences in Japan and the USA only.ConclusionsPatients across a myriad of geographies, settings and demographics harbour specific preferences for physician attire. Some preferences are nearly universal, whereas others vary substantially. As a one-size-fits-all dress policy is unlikely to reflect patient desires and expectations, a tailored approach should be sought that attempts to match attire to clinical context.

BackgroundDespite focused initiatives to reduce device-associated infection among hospitalised patients, the practices US hospitals are currently using are unknown. We thus used a national survey to ascertain the use of several established and novel practices to prevent device-associated infections.MethodsWe mailed surveys to infection preventionists in a random sample of nearly 900 US acute care hospitals in 2017. Our survey asked about the use of practices to prevent three common device-associated infections: catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI), central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Using sample weights, we estimated the percentage of hospitals reporting regular use of each practice. We also conducted multivariable regression to determine associations between selected hospital characteristics (eg, perceived support from leadership) and use of CAUTI, CLABSI and VAP prevention practices.ResultsThe response rate was 59%. Several practices are reportedly used in over 90% of US hospitals: aseptic technique during indwelling urethral catheter insertion and maintenance (to prevent CAUTI); maximum sterile barrier precautions during central catheter insertion and alcohol-containing chlorhexidine gluconate for insertion site antisepsis (to prevent CLABSI); and semirecumbent positioning of the patient (to prevent VAP). Antimicrobial devices are used in the minority of hospitals for these three device-associated infections.ConclusionsWe provide an updated snapshot of the practices US hospitals are currently using to prevent device-associated infections. Compared with previous studies using a similar design and questions, we found that the use of recommended practices increased in US hospitals, especially for CAUTI prevention.

ObjectivePeripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) are frequently used to deliver medical therapies, but our knowledge regarding PICC-related complications remains incomplete. The objective of this study was to systematically elicit and characterise PICC-related complications as experienced by patients during and after hospitalisation.DesignProspective cohort study.SettingInpatient medical units at four US hospitals in two states.ParticipantsConsecutive sample of patients who had a new PICC placed during a hospital stay between August 2015 and May 2017.Main outcome(s)Patient-reported signs and symptoms of a possible PICC-related complication or functional issues.ResultsOf the 438 patients in the analytic cohort (91.4% of those consented), two-thirds were male with a mean age of 56 years. The most common reason for PICC placement was long-term antibiotic therapy (43.4%). During the 70-day follow-up period, 61.4% of patients reported signs of at least one complication, including potentially serious complications, such as bloodstream infection (17.6%) and deep vein thrombosis (30.6%). Correspondence of these reported events with medical record documentation of the complication was generally low. More than one-quarter (27.9%) of patients reported minor complications, such as insertion site redness, discomfort or difficult removal. While the PICC was in place, 26.0% reported restrictions in activities of daily living, 14.4% social activity restrictions and 19.2% had difficulty with flushing or operating the PICC.ConclusionOver 60% of patients report signs or symptoms of a possible complication or adverse effect after PICC placement. Bothersome complications from the patient perspective are clearly more common than those that typically rise to the level of healthcare provider attention or concern. Understanding the patient experience is critical for providing safe and effective care.