Search

Study Aims: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was increasing pressure to be vaccinated to prevent further spread of the virus and improve outcomes. At the same time, part of the population expressed reluctance to vaccination, for various reasons. Only a few studies have compared the perceptions of vaccinated and non-vaccinated patients being treated in hospitals for COVID-19. Our aim was to investigate the association between vaccination status and perceived healthcare-associated discrimination in patients with COVID-19 receiving hospital treatment., Methods: Adult patients presenting to the emergency department or hospitalised for inpatient care due to or with COVID-19 from 1 June to 31 December 2021 in two Swiss hospitals were eligible. The primary endpoint was patients' perceived healthcare-associated discrimination, measured with the Discrimination in Medical Settings (DMS) scale. Secondary endpoints included different aspects of perceived quality of care and symptoms of psychological distress measured with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale., Results: Non-vaccinated patients (n = 113) had significantly higher DMS scores compared to vaccinated patients (n = 80) (mean: 9.54 points [SD: 4.84] vs 7.79 points [SD: 1.85]; adjusted difference: 1.18 [95% CI: 0.04-2.33 points]) and 21 of 80 vaccinated patients felt discriminated against vs 54 of 113 non-vaccinated patients (adjusted OR: 2.09 [95% CI: 1.10-3.99 ]). Non-vaccinated patients reported lower scores regarding respectful treatment by the nursing team (mean: 8.39 points [SD: 2.39] vs 9.30 points [SD: 1.09]; adjusted difference: -0.6 [95% CI: -1.18 - -0.02 points])., Conclusion: We found an association between vaccination status and perceived healthcare-associated discrimination. Healthcare workers should act in a professional manner regardless of a patient's vaccination status; in doing so, they might prevent the creation of negative perceptions in patients.

Background: We recently compared the effects of bedside and outside the room ward rounds on patients' knowledge about their medical care. Here, we report preferences of medical and nursing staff members regarding outside versus bedside ward rounds., Methods: Within this ancillary project of a large multicentre randomised controlled trial, we prospectively conducted a survey of medical and nursing staff members participating in the weekly consultant ward rounds in the internal medicine division of three Swiss teaching hospitals between July 2017 and October 2019. Participants were asked about their preferences on outside versus bedside ward rounds. The primary endpoint was satisfaction of healthcare workers with the ward round measured with a visual analogue scale from 0 to 100., Results: Between July 2017 and October 2019, 919 patients were included in the trial, and we received 891 survey responses (nurses 15.6%, residents 26.8%, attending physicians 29.6%, consultants 7.8% and chief physicians 20.2%. In the overall analysis, mean (± standard deviation) satisfaction of healthcare workers was higher with outside the room than bedside ward rounds (78.03 ± 16.96 versus 68.25 ± 21.10 respectively; age-, gender- and centre-adjusted difference of -10.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] -12.73 to -8.19; p <0.001). Healthcare workers reported better time management, more discussion of sensitive topics and less discomfort when case presentations were conducted outside the room. A stratified subgroup analysis considering the profession, however, showed strong differences, with nurses being more satisfied with bedside rounds (69.20 ± 20.32 versus 65.32 ± 20.92, respectively; adjusted difference 4.35, 95% CI -1.79 to 10.51; p <0.001), whereas attending physicians showed higher satisfaction with outside the room rounds (82.63 ± 13.87 versus 66.59 ± 21.82; adjusted difference -16.51, 95% CI -20.29 to -12.72; p = 0.002)., Conclusions: While bedside ward rounds are considered more patient centred and are preferred by the nursing staff, physicians prefer outside the room presentation of patients during ward rounds because of the perceived better discussion of sensitive topics, better time management and less staff discomfort. Continuous training including medical communication techniques may help to increase satisfaction of physicians with bedside ward rounds. Trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03210987.

AIMS OF THE STUDY: There is increasing interest in better understanding of long COVID, a condition characterised by long-term sequelae — appearing or persisting after the typical convalescence period — of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Herein, we describe long-term outcomes regarding residual symptoms and psychological distress in hospitalised patients 1 year after COVID-19. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included consecutive adult patients hospitalised for confirmed COVID-19 in two Swiss tertiary-care hospitals between March and June 2020. The primary endpoint was evidence of long COVID 1 year after discharge, defined as ≥1 persisting or new symptom related to COVID-19, from a predefined list of symptoms. Secondary endpoints included psychological distress and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). RESULTS: Among 90 patients included in the study, 63 (70%) had symptoms of long COVID 1 year after hospitalisation, particularly fatigue (46%), concentration difficulties (31%), shortness of breath (21%) and post-exertion malaise (20%). Three predictors, namely duration of hospitalisation (odds ratio [OR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00–1.22; p = 0.041), severity of illness (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.04–1.37; p = 0.013), and self-perceived overall health status 30 days after hospitalisation (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94–1.00; p = 0.027) were associated with long COVID. Regarding secondary endpoints, 16 (18%) experienced psychological distress and 3 (3.3%) patients had symptoms of PTSD. CONCLUSION: A high proportion of COVID-19 patients report symptoms of long COVID 1 year after hospitalisation, which negatively affects their quality of life. The most important risk factors were severe initial presentation of COVID-19 with long hospital stays.

Introduction: Code status discussions are useful for understanding patients&rsquo; preferences in the case of a cardiac/pulmonary arrest. These discussions can also provide patients with a basis for informed decision-making regarding life-sustaining treatment. We conducted a survey to understand current practices and perceptions of code status discussions in a tertiary-care Swiss hospital., Methods: We performed systematic interviews across different departments of the University Hospital of Basel. We interviewed 258 physicians and 145 patients who were hospitalised between May and July 2018 using a questionnaire designed to assess the use of code status discussions and to gauge patients&rsquo; individual experiences and opinions., Results: A total of 61.4% of patients did not recall having had a code status discussion during the hospital stay. However, a higher proportion of medical patients compared to surgical patients recalled having had a discussion (43.6 vs 22.4%, p = 0.03). For 9 out of 38 (23.7%) patients who did recall the discussion, there was a lack of agreement between the preference given in the interview regarding resuscitation measures and the documented code status in the medical electronic chart. Furthermore, a majority of physicians (72.4%) recalled defining a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) status for a patient without prior discussion with the patient. Physicians who recalled determining the DNR status without patient consultation reported conflicts with patients and relatives regarding code status at a higher rate compared to physicians who did not define DNR status without consultation (62.4 vs 39.4%, p &lt;0.001)., Conclusion: A majority of patients do not report having discussed code status during their hospital stay and physicians frequently omit such discussions, thereby potentially failing to attend to patients&rsquo; preferences for care. Physician training regarding code status discussions may improve the quality of informed decision-making and patient-centred care.