Healthcare students' moral concerns and distress during the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the first wave of the new coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the sudden increase in hospitalised patients put medical facilities in southern Switzerland under severe pressure. During this time, bachelor's degree programs in nursing, physiotherapy and occupational therapy were disrupted, and students in their second year were displaced. Students experienced the continuous reorganisation of their traineeship as healthcare facilities adapted to a climate of uncertainty. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the degree of moral distress and the ethical issues most often encountered by physiotherapy, nursing and occupational therapy students enrolled in a traineeship during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in southern Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT: The sample consisted of 102 participants, and the response rate was 81.6%. RESEARCH DESIGN: Based on a pragmatic approach, a mixed-method with a convergent design was adopted. Data were collected between 30 April 2020 and 14 May 2020, via a survey administered to all occupational therapy, physiotherapy and nursing students in their fourth semester. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Given that no vulnerable persons were involved, the Ethics Committee of Southern Switzerland waived authorisation. However, all measures were put into place to protect participants by guaranteeing their anonymity and confidentiality. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The data analysis showed that the main source for moral distress was 'poor teamwork' and that the moral issues encountered most often by students were related to the appropriateness of care and working conditions, with a clear reference to students' own safety and that of their loved ones; the other concerns reported included the loss of learning opportunities and the perceived lack of technical knowledge and skills. CONCLUSIONS: This survey offers a faithful overview of physiotherapy, nursing and occupational therapy students' experience during the first pandemic wave. This study also identifies some key recommendations for healthcare professions' education.

Diagnostic and decision-making abilities of Swiss physiotherapists in a simulated direct access setting.

BACKGROUND: Direct access to physiotherapy requires physiotherapists to recognize red flags and determine adequate management plans. PURPOSE: Investigate Swiss physiotherapists' ability to diagnose and triage patients in a simulated direct access setting and whether their characteristics were associated with correct diagnoses and decision-making. METHODS: We conducted a national online survey using a questionnaire containing 12 first-contact case scenarios. A linear mixed model estimated scores for correct diagnoses and management decisions, differences between musculoskeletal (MSK), non-critical medical (non-CrM), and critical medical (CrM) case scenarios, and the estimated effects of physiotherapists' characteristics. RESULTS: The linear mixed model of data from 1492 participants estimated 55.0% correct diagnoses (62.7% for non-CrM, 61.7% for MSK, and 40.5% for CrM scenarios) and 71.2% correct management decisions (78.1% for non-CrM, 73.0% for MSK, and 62.3% for CrM scenarios). For correct diagnoses, the 'academic education/continuing education' variable showed significant estimated effects for the MSK and CrM scenarios, as did 'professional experience' for the non-CrM scenarios, and the '≥ 50% musculoskeletal patients in consultations' variable for all scenario groups. For correct management decisions, 'academic education/continuing education' variable showed significant estimated effects in CrM scenarios, as did 'professional experience' in non-CrM and CrM scenarios, and the '≥ 50% musculoskeletal patients in consultations' variable in MSK scenarios. CONCLUSION: The estimated effects of physiotherapists' characteristics on correct diagnoses and management decisions showed substantial heterogeneity. Improving Swiss physiotherapists' screening abilities remains important. Further research is required to develop innovative educational concepts and improve training for screening for red flags.

Efficacy of the Gelstix nucleus augmentation device for the treatment of chronic discogenic low back pain: protocol for a randomised, sham-controlled, double-blind, multicentre trial.

INTRODUCTION: Discogenic pain is the cause of pain in 26%-40% of patients with for low back pain. Consensus about treatment of chronic discogenic low back pain is lacking and most treatment alternatives are supported by limited evidence. The percutaneous implantation of hydrogels into the nucleus pulposus represents a promising regenerative intradiscal therapy. The hydrogel 'GelStix' is composed primarily of hydrolyzed polyacrylonitrile and acts as a reservoir of hydration, producing increased pressure and improved pH balance, potentially leading to disc preservation. We hypothesise that treatment with GelStix will lead to greater reduction in pain intensity at 6 months post-treatment compared with patients receiving sham treatment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a parallel group, randomised sham-controlled double-blind, multicentre trial to assess whether the GelStix device is superior to sham in reducing pain intensity in patients with chronic discogenic low back pain. The study will be conducted in two regional hospitals in Europe. Seventy-two participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome will be the change in pain intensity between preoperative baseline and at 6 months postintervention. Secondary outcomes were disability, quality of life, the patient's global impression of change scale, the use of pain medication and the disc degeneration process assessed by means of MRI. For change in pain intensity, disability, health-related quality of life and disc height, mean values will be compared between groups using linear regression analysis, adjusted for treatment centre. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Canton Ticino, Switzerland (CE2982) and by the Medical Ethical Committee Arnhem-Nijmegen, the Netherlands (2016-2944). All patients that agree to participate will be asked to sign an informed consent form. Results will be disseminated through international publications in peer-reviewed journals, in addition to international conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02763956. PROTOCOL VERSION: 7.1, 18 November 2020.

Effect of an interdisciplinary outpatient pain management program (IOPP) for chronic pain patients with and without migration background: a prospective, observational clinical study.

OBJECTIVES: Short- and long-term effects of an interdisciplinary outpatient pain program (IOPP) in terms of quality of life, coping strategies, experiencing of pain and pain intensity as well as the influence of age, gender, or migration background. DESIGN: Single, prospective cohort with assessments at baseline, posttreatment, and at 3, 6, 12 months follow-up. PATIENTS: A total of 175 patients with chronic, nonmalignant pain syndromes (32.1% male and 67.9% female; age 43 ± 9.6 years). INTERVENTION: Multi-professional, biopsychosocial-oriented pain program for the duration of 8 weeks. OUTCOMES: Pain intensity, Pain Disability Index (German Version of Pain Disability Index, PDI-G), cognitive and behavioral coping strategies (Verarbeitung chronischer Schmerzen FESV), Marburger questionnaire about habitual subjective well-being, and processing of chronic pain (Veränderungsfragebogen des Erlebens und Verhaltens, VEV). The migration background was considered to determine whether this variable influences the clinical outcomes. RESULTS: All the mentioned variables except pain intensity improved significantly after the program (P < 0.05); whereas, after the 1-year follow-up, most of the parameters returned to the baseline values. Solely the subscale "pain-related psychological strain" remained significantly better compared with baseline (P < 0.05). The variable "migration background" influenced the outcomes PDI-G, habitual well-being, and FESV (P < 0.001; variance of 16.7% [95% confidence interval 7.8-25.5]). After 12 months, 49.4% showed an improvement with regard to the VEV outcome measurement, 22.6% showed no changes, and 28% showed worsening of the symptoms. Gender and age did not influence the results at 12 months (P = 0.408; P = 0.964). CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence for the short-term effect of the IOPP in chronic pain patients as well as the long-term effect for the variable "pain-related psychological strain".

Chronic nonmalignant pain: a challenge for patients and clinicians.

Chronic pain is widely regarded as a condition that is triggered by various factors, including physical, socio-cultural and psychological deficiencies (that is, maladaptive beliefs). These factors are important in the development and maintenance of this unpleasant experience, which consequently requires a biopsychosocial treatment approach. Pain is a multifaceted sense, the perception of which is personal. Pain also depends on various circumstances, and therefore represents a challenge for the patient, as well for the treating physicians. Patients who suffer from long-lasting pain with a predominantly psychosocial component should be referred to specialized pain clinics for further diagnostic assessment and possible allocation to multidisciplinary pain programs. High-quality randomized controlled trials indicate that multidisciplinary pain programs represent the best therapeutic option for the management of patients with complaints associated with complex chronic pain. The prevalence and the costs--both direct and indirect--that are attributed to chronic pain are increasing; however, not enough is being done to sufficiently and effectively treat chronic pain. There is, therefore, a need for well-designed, interdisciplinary, internationally comparable, and widely distributed pain programs, both in outpatient and inpatient settings, to contribute to the prevention of some future pain diseases.