Patient satisfaction, safety and efficacy of nurse-led compared to physician-led implantation of cardiac monitors.

AIMS: Implantation of an implantable cardiac monitor (ICM) is a simple procedure, but adds significant and increasing workload to the arrhythmia service. In 2020, we established a nurse-led ICM implantation service. We aimed to analyze patient satisfaction, adverse events during implant and ICM re-interventions with nurse-led ICM implantation (N-Implant) compared to physician-led ICM implantation (P-Implant). METHOD AND RESULTS: From January 2020 to December 2021 we included all consecutive patients implanted with an ICM in a prospective registry. We collected data on patient characteristics, implant procedure and follow-up. Patients were interviewed by phone four weeks after ICM implantation.Of 321 patients implanted with an ICM (median age 67 years; 33% women), 189 (59%) were N-Implants. More N-Implants were performed in the outpatient clinic compared to P-Implants (95% vs. 8%; p<0.001). Two N-Implant patients experienced vaso-vagal reaction during implantation (1%), whereas no adverse events occurred during P-Implant (p=0.51). 297 patients (93%) completed the questionnaire. Duration of pain was shorter and wound closure after 2 weeks better following N-Implant (p=0.019 and p=0.018). A minor bruise or swelling at the implant site was reported more frequently after N-Implant (p=0.003 and p=0.041). Patient satisfaction was excellent with both N-Implant and P-Implant (99% and 97%; p=0.16). After a median follow-up of 242 days (range 7-725 days), five ICMs (2%) were explanted prematurely, without differences among groups. Reasons for premature explants were local discomfort (n=2), infection, MRI and ICM malfunction. CONCLUSION: Nurse-led ICM implantation has excellent patient satisfaction without compromising safety. N-Implant both expands nursing competencies and reduces physician workload.

General practitioners' willingness to participate in research: A survey in central Switzerland.

It is difficult to enlist the participation of medical general practitioners (GPs) in research studies. We aimed to determine the willingness of GPs in central Switzerland to participate in research, and to identify factors that facilitate or hinder research participation by GPs. To that end, we conducted a postal questionnaire survey of all 268 active GPs in the canton of Lucerne. The survey explored their interest in participating in research projects (yes/no) and factors that potentially influence their participation (5-point Likert scale from "very important" to "not at all important"). We contacted all non-responders by phone. Background information of the GPs was retrieved from the database of the cantonal association of physicians. Associations between willingness to participate in research and GP's age, gender, type and location of practice, and the perceived relevance of facilitators were investigated via multiple logistic regression. Out of 268 GPs, 115 (43%) agreed to be contacted for future research projects. Willingness was associated with age (willing: 55% ≤ 40 y vs. 33% > 60 y) and gender (44% male vs. 38% female), and to some degree with the type of practice (50% group vs. 31% single), and location (46% urban vs. 38% rural), independently from each other. Scientists should develop methods to motivate and support GPs in single and rural practices to participate so research is representative of primary care as a whole.