FreshRSS

🔒
❌ Acerca de FreshRSS
Hay nuevos artículos disponibles. Pincha para refrescar la página.
AnteayerTus fuentes RSS

Prevention of psychosocial distress consequences in somatic hospital inpatients via a stepped and collaborative care model: protocol of SomPsyNet, a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial

Por: Meinlschmidt · G. · Frick · A. · Baenteli · I. · Karpf · C. · Studer · A. · Bachmann · M. · Dörner · A. · Tschudin · S. · Trost · S. · Wyss · K. · Fink · G. · Schwenkglenks · M. · Caviezel · S. · Rocco · T. · Schaefert · R. · The SomPsyNet consortium · Aebi · Bachmann · Caviezel · Baen
Introduction

Approximately 30% of somatic hospital inpatients experience psychosocial distress, contributing to increased (re-)hospitalisation rates, treatment resistance, morbidity, and direct and indirect costs. However, such distress often remains unrecognised and unaddressed. We established ‘SomPsyNet’, a ‘stepped and collaborative care model’ (SCCM) for somatic hospital inpatients, aiming at alleviating this issue through early identification of distress and provision of appropriate care, providing problem-focused pathways and strengthening collaborative care. We report the protocol of the ‘SomPsyNet’ study, aiming to evaluate implementation and impact of the SCCM on distressed patients’ health-related quality of life. Secondary objectives include assessing efficacy of the screening procedures, influence of SCCM on other health outcomes and associated costs.

Methods and analysis

Our stepped wedge cluster randomised trial conducted at three tertiary hospitals comprises three conditions: treatment as usual (TAU) without screening for distress (phase 0), TAU with screening but without consequences (phase I, main comparator) and TAU with screening and psychosomatic-psychiatric consultations for those distressed (phase II). The time-of-transition between phases I and II was randomised. Sample size target is N=2200–2500 participants, with 6 month follow-up for distressed (anticipated n=640–700) and a subsample of non-distressed (anticipated n=200) patients. Primary outcome is mental health-related quality of life (SF-36 ‘Mental Health Component Summary score’); secondary outcomes include psychosocial distress, anxiety, depressive and somatic symptoms, symptom burden and distress, resilience, social support and qualitative of life, assessed by internationally accepted instruments, with good psychometric properties. Further, health claims data will be used to assess SCCM’s impact on direct and indirect costs.

Ethics and dissemination

SomPsyNet adheres to the Helsinki Declaration and is approved by the ‘Ethikkommission Nordwest- und Zentralschweiz’ (2019–01724). Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and communicated to participants, healthcare professionals and the public.

Trial registration number

Swiss National Clinical Trials Portal; ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04269005, updated 19.09.2023).

Scabies outbreak management in refugee/migrant camps in Europe 2014-2017: a retrospective qualitative interview study of healthcare staff experiences and perspectives

Por: Richardson · N. A. · Cassell · J. A. · Head · M. G. · Lanza · S. · Schaefer · C. · Walker · S. L. · Middleton · J.
Objectives

Provide insights into the experiences and perspectives of healthcare staff who treated scabies or managed outbreaks in formal and informal refugee/migrant camps in Europe 2014–2017.

Design

Retrospective qualitative study using semistructured telephone interviews and framework analysis. Recruitment was done primarily through online networks of healthcare staff involved in medical care in refugee/migrant settings.

Setting

Formal and informal refugee/migrant camps in Europe 2014–2017.

Participants

Twelve participants (four doctors, four nurses, three allied health workers, one medical student) who had worked in camps (six in informal camps, nine in formal ones) across 15 locations within seven European countries (Greece, Serbia, Macedonia, Turkey, France, the Netherlands, Belgium).

Results

Participants reported that in camps they had worked, scabies diagnosis was primarily clinical (without dermatoscopy), and treatment and outbreak management varied highly. Seven stated scabicides were provided, while five reported that only symptomatic management was offered. They described camps as difficult places to work, with poor living standards for residents. Key perceived barriers to scabies control were (1) lack of water, sanitation and hygiene, specifically: absent/limited showers (difficult to wash off topical scabicides), and inability to wash clothes and bedding (may have increased transmission/reinfestation); (2) social factors: language, stigma, treatment non-compliance and mobility (interfering with contact tracing and follow-up treatments); (3) healthcare factors: scabicide shortages and diversity, lack of examination privacy and staff inexperience; (4) organisational factors: overcrowding, ineffective interorganisational coordination, and lack of support and maltreatment by state authorities (eg, not providing basic facilities, obstruction of self-care by camp residents and non-governmental organisation (NGO) aid).

Conclusions

We recommend development of accessible scabies guidelines for camps, use of consensus diagnostic criteria and oral ivermectin mass treatments. In addition, as much of the work described was by small, volunteer-staffed NGOs, we in the wider healthcare community should reflect how to better support such initiatives and those they serve.

❌