Search

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 vaccines have become the new hope for stemming the pandemic. We aimed to assess pre-launch vaccine acceptance among hospital workers in the Auvergne-Rhone-Alpes Administrative Region of France. METHODS: We performed a cross sectional study involving all hospital workers in 11 Auvergne-Rhone-Alpes hospitals in December 2020. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors associated with vaccine hesitancy. RESULTS: We analyzed completed questionnaires from 1,964 respondents (78% women, mean age 42 years, 21.5% physicians, 41% private care centers). A total of 1,048 (53%) hospital workers were in favor of COVID-19 vaccination. Vaccine hesitancy was associated with: female gender; young age; paramedical, technical, and administrative professions (i.e., all non-medical professions); no prior flu vaccination; and employment in the private medical care sector (p

International audience; OBJECTIVES: To evaluate outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) practices in a French rural area. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Descriptive study assessing knowledge, practices, and limitations of OPAT use among hospital practitioners (HP), family physicians (FP), and private nurses (PN). RESULTS: OPAT (mainly ceftriaxone and penicillins) was used by 69.6%, 73.3%, and 97.7% of the 23 HPs, 45 FPs, and 46 PNs mostly for respiratory or urinary tract infections, bacteremia, and/or multidrug-resistant bacterial infections. Overall, 65.2% of HPs and 37.8% of FPs were in contact with an infectious disease specialist. Knowledge of OPAT benefits and risks was lower for FPs than HPs. The main obstacles were the patient's geographic isolation (HPs), the availability of a venous catheter, the lack of training (FPs), and the expected OPAT-associated overwork (PNs). CONCLUSION: OPAT practice is weak in rural areas. Declared obstacles constitute fields of improvement for its essential expansion.; Objectif Évaluer les pratiques d’antibiothérapie parentérale ambulatoire (APA) en milieu rural.Matériel et méthodesÉtude descriptive interrogeant les médecins hospitaliers (MH), libéraux (ML) et infirmiers libéraux (IDE) sur les connaissances, pratiques et freins concernant l’APA.RésultatsL’APA (ceftriaxone et pénicillines majoritairement) était utilisée par 69,6 %, 73,3 % et 97,7 % des 23 MH, 45 ML et 46 IDE pour infections respiratoires ou urinaires, bactériémies et/ou infections à germes multirésistants, en lien avec un médecin référent pour l’antibiothérapie pour 65,2 % des MH et 37,8 % des ML. Les risques/bénéfices de l’APA étaient moins connus des ML que des MH. Les principaux freins étaient l’isolement géographique du patient (MH), l’accessibilité à une voie veineuse/le manque de formation (ML) et la surcharge de travail pressentie (IDE).ConclusionLes freins à l’APA, peu utilisée en milieu rural, dégagent des axes d’amélioration au développement indispensable de cette pratique.