Patient autonomy and disclosure of material information about hospital-acquired infections

What do patients know about healthcare-associated infections? What do they want to know? Ethical evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Patients hospitalized for treatment may be exposed to healthcare-associated infections, and these infections can affect patients seriously.

OBJECTIVE

This research was conducted to determine what hospitalized patients know and what they want to know about healthcare-associated infections.

METHODS

This is a full-text original research article. The study was conducted between July and September 2022 with inpatients in all clinics of Kocaeli University Hospital in Turkey. A total of 310 patients participated in this cross-sectional study. The questions were asked by the researcher and the answers were recorded.

RESULTS

Almost all (92.8%) the patients who stated that they knew what healthcare-associated infection was evaluated their knowledge as insufficient. Patients with higher educational levels have more information (p=0.000) about healthcare-associated infections. Young (p=0.000) and highly educated patients (p=0.000) stated that the infection rate of the hospital would affect the choice of hospital.

CONCLUSION

Patients want to learn about healthcare-associated infections, but most do not know about them. Patients should be informed about healthcare-associated infections during hospitalization planning and hospitalization.

Lessons learned from a failed implementation: Effective communication with patients in transmission-based precautions

BACKGROUND

Patient engagement with transmission-based precautions can be an important strategy to prevent adverse events related to isolation. Most patient education is still highly prescriptive and is thus unlikely to help. Effective communication requires behavior change, leading to a meaningful dialog between the parties involved.

OBJECTIVE

evaluate implementation process of a protocol for effective communication with patients in transmission-based precautions (Com-Efe).

METHODS

Implementation research using qualitative methods in 4 sequential phases: (1) nonparticipant observation in inpatient wards; (2) design of the intervention for implementation; (3) adaptation of the Com-Efe through workshops with nurses; (4) final assessment of the implementation results through interviews with nurses. Study was performed in a public, secondary, teaching hospital. Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used as the reference for interview design and data analysis, aiming to identify barriers and enablers of the implementation process.

RESULTS

Main factors that could have facilitated adherence were beliefs and perceived advantages in using the Com-Efe by nurses. Main barriers that may have contributed to the failure were the unfavorable climate for implementation, insufficient individual and leadership commitment, and the lack of understanding of the concepts underpinning effective communication.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite using a systematic approach, the Com-Efe protocol was not fully implemented. The lessons learned in this study allowed us to propose suggestions for future protocol implementations in similar contexts.

Examining the effect of infection prevention and control awareness among nurses on patient and family education: A cross-sectional study

The significance of patient engagement in infection prevention and control remains to be stressed as a means of improving patient safety. This study aimed to determine nurses' awareness of infection prevention and control, assess patient and family education on infection prevention and control, and examine the effect of nurses' infection prevention and control awareness on patient and family education. A multi-site, cross-sectional study was conducted among 566 nurses in Hungary. Nurses responded to a questionnaire of three parts: demographics, infection prevention, and control awareness; healthcare-associated infections, hand hygiene, and standard precautions; and patient and family education. High scores were reached in overall awareness and standard precautions. Nurses educated patients and family members the most on hand hygiene and respiratory hygiene. Nurses with higher awareness educated patients more than those with lower awareness, but the differences were only significant for respiratory hygiene and the reason for isolation. Nursing leaders are encouraged to enhance the culture that is based on nurse/patient partnership and to develop reminders to emphasize the importance of engaging patients and family members in infection prevention and control.

Shared decision making in peri-operative medicine: Miles to go in Indian scenario

Shared Decision Making (SDM) in peri-operative medicine is increasingly encouraged as an ideal model of treatment decision making in the medical encounter. Moreover, it has the potential to improve the quality of the decision-making process for patients and ultimately, patient outcomes. This review focuses on several published literature on SDM in peri-operative medicine, its Implementation, barriers faced by Patient and the Provider, Myths regarding SDM and current scenario of SDM in India. Within the anesthetic community, patient consent is vigorously guided. However, this community suffers from lack of advancements in implementing the patient-focused rather than doctor-focused characteristics of SDM. Out of the several barriers, the most common barrier towards the implementation of SDM is the lack of time from the provider community. Within the anesthesia domain, the consultations discussed directly preceding the surgery do not pursue the customary and highly organized stages of typical outpatient consultations. Under these backgrounds and to be successfully implemented, it becomes imperative to begin the process of SDM pre-operative assessment clinic targeting both the high- and low-risk patients. It is critical to summarise that SDM does not end at the time of anesthesia for the peri-operative healthcare professional, but it gets to carry forward until patient discharge. Therefore, it is carried as the Pinnacle of Patient-Centred Care.

A snapshot of European neurosurgery December 2019 vs. March 2020: just before and during the Covid-19 pandemic

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 or Covid-19), which began as an epidemic in China and spread globally as a pandemic, has necessitated resource management to meet emergency needs of Covid-19 patients and other emergent cases. We have conducted a survey to analyze caseload and measures to adapt indications for a perception of crisis.

Methods

We constructed a questionnaire to survey a snapshot of neurosurgical activity, resources, and indications during 1 week with usual activity in December 2019 and 1 week during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in March 2020. The questionnaire was sent to 34 neurosurgical departments in Europe; 25 departments returned responses within 5 days.

Results

We found unexpectedly large differences in resources and indications already before the pandemic. Differences were also large in how much practice and resources changed during the pandemic. Neurosurgical beds and neuro-intensive care beds were significantly decreased from December 2019 to March 2020. The utilization of resources decreased via less demand for care of brain injuries and subarachnoid hemorrhage, postponing surgery and changed surgical indications as a method of rationing resources. Twenty departments (80%) reduced activity extensively, and the same proportion stated that they were no longer able to provide care according to legitimate medical needs.

Conclusion

Neurosurgical centers responded swiftly and effectively to a sudden decrease of neurosurgical capacity due to relocation of resources to pandemic care. The pandemic led to rationing of neurosurgical care in 80% of responding centers. We saw a relation between resources before the pandemic and ability to uphold neurosurgical services. The observation of extensive differences of available beds provided an opportunity to show how resources that had been restricted already under normal conditions translated to rationing of care that may not be acceptable to the public of seemingly affluent European countries.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00701-020-04482-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

[Recommendations of the Working Groups from the Spanish Society of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine and Coronary Units (SEMICYUC) for the management of adult critically ill patients in the coronavirus disease (COVID-19)]

On March 11, 2020, the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) as a pandemic. The spread and evolution of the pandemic is overwhelming the healthcare systems of dozens of countries and has led to a myriad of opinion papers, contingency plans, case series and emerging trials. Covering all this literature is complex. Briefly and synthetically, in line with the previous recommendations of the Working Groups, the Spanish Society of Intensive, Critical Medicine and Coronary Units (SEMICYUC) has prepared this series of basic recommendations for patient care in the context of the pandemic.

Recommendations of the Working Groups from the Spanish Society of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine and Coronary Units (SEMICYUC) for the management of adult critically ill patients in the coronavirus disease (COVID-19)

On March 11, 2020, the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) as a pandemic. The spread and evolution of the pandemic is overwhelming the healthcare systems of dozens of countries and has led to a myriad of opinion papers, contingency plans, case series and emerging trials. Covering all this literature is complex. Briefly and synthetically, in line with the previous recommendations of the Working Groups, the Spanish Society of Intensive, Critical Medicine and Coronary Units (SEMICYUC) has prepared this series of basic recommendations for patient care in the context of the pandemic.

Healthcare-Associated Infections: Not Only a Clinical Burden, But a Forensic Point of View

BACKGROUND

Healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs) occur when patients receiving treatment in a health care setting develop an infection. They represent a major public health problem, requiring the integration of clinical medicine, pathology, epidemiology, laboratory sciences, and, finally, forensic medicine.

METHODS

The determination of cause of death is fundamental not only in the cases of presumed malpractice to ascertain the causal link with any negligent behavior both of health facilities and of individual professionals, but also for epidemiological purposes since it may help to know the global burden of HCAIs, that remains undetermined because of the difficulty of gathering reliable diagnostic data. A complete methodological approach, integrating clinical data by means of autopsy and histological and laboratory findings aiming to identify and demonstrate the host response to infectious insult, is mandatory in HCAIs related deaths.

RESULTS

Important tasks for forensic specialists in hospitals and health services centers are the promotion of transparency and open communication by health-care workers on the risk of HCAIs, thus facilitating patients' engagement and the implementation of educational interventions for professionals aimed to improve their knowledge and adherence to prevention and control measures.

CONCLUSION

HCAIs are a major problem for patient safety in every health-care facility and system around the world and their control and prevention represent a challenging priority for healthcare institution and workers committed to making healthcare safer. Clinicians are at the forefront in the war against HCAIs, however, also forensic pathologists have a remarkable role.