Conectar
by Costanza Vicentini, Enrico Ricchizzi, Antonino Russotto, Stefano Bazzolo, Catia Bedosti, Valentina Blengini, Dario Ceccarelli, Elisa Fabbri, Dario Gamba, Anna Maddaleno, Edoardo Rolfini, Margherita Tancredi, Carla Maria Zotti
IntroductionResidents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are a population at high risk of developing severe healthcare associated infections (HAIs). In the assessment of HAIs in acute-care hospitals, selection bias can occur due to cases being over-represented: patients developing HAIs usually have longer lengths of stays compared to controls, and therefore have an increased probability of being sampled in PPS, leading to an overestimation of HAI prevalence. Our hypothesis was that in LTCFs, the opposite may occur: residents developing HAIs either may have a greater chance of being transferred to acute-care facilities or of dying, and therefore could be under-represented in PPS, leading to an underestimation of HAI prevalence. Our aim was to test this hypothesis by comparing HAI rates obtained through longitudinal and cross-sectional studies.
MethodsResults from two studies conducted simultaneously in four LTCFs in Italy were compared: a longitudinal study promoted by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC, HALT4 longitudinal study, H4LS), and a PPS. Prevalence was estimated from the PPS and converted into incidence per year using an adapted version of the Rhame and Sudderth formula proposed by the ECDC. Differences between incidence rates calculated from the PPS results and obtained from H4LS were investigated using the Byar method for rate ratio (RR).
ResultsOn the day of the PPS, HAI prevalence was 1.47% (95% confidence interval, CI 0.38–3.97), whereas the H4LS incidence rate was 3.53 per 1000 patient-days (PDs, 95% CI 2.99–4.08). Conversion of prevalence rates obtained through the PPS into incidence using the ECDC formula resulted in a rate of 0.86 per 1000 PDs (95% CI 0–2.68). Comparing the two rates, a RR of 0.24 (95% CI 0.03–2.03, p 0.1649) was found.
ConclusionsThis study did not find significant differences between HAI incidence estimates obtained from a longitudinal study and through conversion from PPS data. Results of this study support the validity of the ECDC method.
Being on a waiting list for elective (planned) cardiac surgery can be physically and psychologically challenging for patients. Research suggests that stress associated with waiting for surgery is dependent on different individual and contextual factors. However, most data on patients’ experiences of waiting for surgery and preferences for waiting list management derives from non-cardiac clinical populations. The aim of the current study is to explore patients’ experiences of being on a waiting list for elective cardiac surgery, and their views on how the waiting experience could be improved in the future. This work will inform the patient management strategy during the waiting period for surgery across the four major hospitals in London directly involved in this study, and potentially beyond by transferring learning to other services.
This is a mixed-methods study that will collect quantitative and qualitative data using a cross-sectional online survey. Patients who are on waiting lists for elective surgery across four major cardiac surgery departments in London hospitals, and are at least 18 years old, will be invited by their healthcare team via text message or letter to complete the survey. The target sample size of non-randomly selected participants will be 268. Bivariable and multivariable regression models will be used to assess associations between survey items measuring the impact of the cardiac condition on specific life domains (eg, daily activities, social and family relationships, hobbies, sexual life), anxiety and depression symptoms as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 and survey items evaluating experiences of health services. Data on experience and preferences for improvements to the waiting experience will be analysed with qualitative content analysis using an inductive approach.
This study was reviewed and granted ethical approval by the East of England—East Cambridge Research Ethics Committee. Findings from this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, a research website and social media and with an online event engaging patients, members of the public, healthcare professionals and other relevant stakeholders.
FreshRSS 