Does It Pay to Treat Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019? Social Perception of Physicians Treating Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the public has often expressed great appreciation toward medical personnel who were often shown in the media expressing strong emotions about the situation. To examine whether the perception of people on a physician is in fact influenced by whether the physician treats patients with COVID-19 and the emotions they expressed in response to the situation, 454 participants were recruited in May 2020. Participants saw facial expressions of anger, sadness, happiness, and neutrality which supposedly were shown by physicians who were presented as working either in COVID-19 wards or in an internal medicine ward. Participants rated how competent, empathetic, caring, and likable each physician was, to what degree they would wish to be treated by each physician, and what salary each physician deserved. Physicians treating patients with COVID-19 were seen more positively and as deserving higher pay; they appeared more competent, caring, likable, and were more likely to be chosen as a caregiver compared to physicians not treating patients with COVID-19. The expressed emotions of physicians had a strong impact on how they were perceived, yet this effect was largely unrelated to whether they treated patients with COVID-19 or not such that happy physicians seemed more empathetic, caring, and likable than the physicians who showed negative emotions. Positive regard toward physicians treating patients with COVID-19 was associated with the fact that they were seen as saving lives and not due to the risk imposed by their work.

Comparison of the Logical Use of Parenteral Antibiotics Before and After the Implementation of the Stewardship Program

Background: Excessive use of antibiotics has led to drug resistance. As such, stewardship programs are implemented to control antibiotic use in hospitalized patients. Objectives: The present study aimed to evaluate the frequency of antibiotic use after the implementation of the stewardship program. Methods: This retrospective study was conducted on the patients admitted to Imam Reza Hospital in Kermanshah, Iran during 2017 - 2018. The required data were extracted from the pharmaceutical ward of the hospital. Data analysis was performed in SPSS version 24. Results: The median per capita numerical and Rial consumption of caspofungin and linezolid antibiotics increased after the implementation of the stewardship plan, while the consumption of imipenem, amphotericin, teicoplanin, colistin, meropenem, voriconazole, and vancomycin was observed to decrease. In addition, the median per capita of the numerical use of caspofungin and linezolid increased in the surgery ward, intensive care unit (ICU), and internal medicine ward after the implementation of the stewardship plan. On the other hand, a reduction was observed in the use of amphotericin, colistin, voriconazole, and vancomycin in only one ward. The use of meropenem and teicoplanin also increased in the surgery ward and decreased in the other wards, while the use of imipenem increased in the ICU after implementing the plan and decreased in the other wards. The median use of antibiotics was not considered significant in the internal medicine ward, surgery ward, and ICU before and after implementing the stewardship program (P > 0.05). Conclusions: According to the results, antibiotic use slightly decreased after the implementation of the stewardship program. However, an increase was also observed in antibiotic prescription in some cases, which indicated that the stewardship program was not implemented properly, and no changes occurred in antibiotics prescription.

Presumed Urinary Tract Infection in Patients Admitted with COVID-19: Are We Treating Too Much?

Despite the low rates of bacterial co-/superinfections in COVID-19 patients, antimicrobial drug use has been liberal since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the low specificity of markers of bacterial co-/superinfection in the COVID-19 setting, overdiagnosis and antimicrobial overprescription have become widespread. A quantitative and qualitative evaluation of urinary tract infection (UTI) diagnoses and antimicrobial drug prescriptions for UTI diagnoses was performed in patients admitted to the COVID-19 ward of a university hospital between 17 March and 2 November 2020. A team of infectious disease specialists performed an appropriateness evaluation for every diagnosis of UTI and every antimicrobial drug prescription covering a UTI. A driver analysis was performed to identify factors increasing the odds of UTI (over)diagnosis. A total of 622 patients were included. UTI was present in 13% of included admissions, and in 12%, antimicrobials were initiated for a UTI diagnosis (0.71 daily defined doses (DDDs)/admission; 22% were scored as ‘appropriate’). An evaluation of UTI diagnoses by ID specialists revealed that of the 79 UTI diagnoses, 61% were classified as probable overdiagnosis related to the COVID-19 hospitalization. The following factors were associated with UTI overdiagnosis: physicians who are unfamiliar working in an internal medicine ward, urinary incontinence, mechanical ventilation and female sex. Antimicrobial stewardship teams should focus on diagnostic stewardship of UTIs, as UTI overdiagnosis seems to be highly prevalent in admitted COVID-19 patients.

Content and structure of ward rounds focusing interprofessional collaboration on an internal medicine ward: An observational study of interprofessional collaboration

Ward rounds are crucial for the exchange of information among healthcare professionals to achieve joint planning and shared decision-making in healthcare to enhance patient safety. The aim of this study was to describe the content and structure of ward rounds focusing on interprofessional collaboration on an internal medicine ward at a university hospital in Western Sweden. An inductive qualitative approach was used to explore 13 participatory observations of ward rounds (sitting/team rounds). Qualitative content analysis was used. The analysis revealed one category, titled interprofessional teamwork, that utilises all available resources, which consisted of three subcategories: usefulness of specialist competencies, collaboration for patient safety, and leading healthcare to achieve goal fulfilment. It was also found that the participating specialists’ competencies were not being optimally used before patients were discharged from the hospital. Therefore, communication and leadership skills were revealed as ways to improve interprofessional teamwork to achieve goal fulfilment and patient safety regarding care and treatment issues on the ward. We found that reversing the order of ward rounds to start with the sitting round followed by the team round (i.e. hybrid distance participation methods), with the same ward round leader who has skills in leadership and interprofessional teamwork, could eliminate the need for healthcare providers to repeat questions and tasks (i.e. double work) on their ward rounds. Second, patient involvement is grounded in collaboration, and can be emphasised through person-centred care to facilitate patient safety during hospital stays.

Prescription of Potentially Inappropriate Medication in Older Inpatients of an Internal Medicine Ward: Concordance and Overlap Among the EU(7)-PIM List and Beers and STOPP Criteria

Background: Age-related comorbidities prone older adults to polypharmacy and to an increased risk of potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use. This work aims to analyze the concordance and overlap among the EU(7)-PIM list, 2019 Beers criteria, and Screening Tool of Older Person’s Prescriptions (STOPP) version 2 criteria and also to analyze the prevalence of PIM.Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on older inpatients of an internal medicine ward. Demographic, clinical, and pharmacological data were collected, during March 2020. After PIM identification by the EU(7)-PIM list, Beers criteria, and STOPP v2 criteria, the concordance and overlap between criteria were analyzed. A descriptive analysis was performed, and all the results with a p-value lower than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.Results: A total of 616 older patients were included in the study whose median age was 85 (Q1–Q3) (78–89) years. Most of the older patients were male (51.6%), and the median (Q1–Q3) number of days of hospitalization was 17 (13–22) days. According to the EU(7)-PIM list, Beers criteria, and STOPP criteria, 79.7, 92.0, and 76.5% of older adults, respectively, used at least one PIM. A poor concordance (<63.4%) among criteria was observed. An association between PIM and the number of prescribed medicines was found in all applied criteria. Moreover, an association between the number of PIMs and diagnoses of endocrine, nutritional, and metabolic diseases, mental, behavioral, and neurodevelopmental disorders, and circulatory system diseases and days of hospitalization was observed according to Beers criteria, and that with diseases of the circulatory system and musculoskeletal system and connective tissue was observed according to STOPP criteria.Conclusion: Despite the poor concordance between the EU(7)-PIM list, 2019 Beers, and STOPP v2 criteria, this work highlights the need for more studies in inpatients to develop strategies to facilitate the identification of PIM to decrease the high prevalence of PIM in hospitalized patients. The poor concordance among criteria also highlights the need to develop new tools adapting the existing criteria to medical ward inpatients.