The association of vaccination status with perceived discrimination in patients with COVID-19: results from a cross-sectional study.

STUDY AIMS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was increasing pressure to be vaccinated to prevent further spread of the virus and improve outcomes. At the same time, part of the population expressed reluctance to vaccination, for various reasons. Only a few studies have compared the perceptions of vaccinated and non-vaccinated patients being treated in hospitals for COVID-19. Our aim was to investigate the association between vaccination status and perceived healthcare-associated discrimination in patients with COVID-19 receiving hospital treatment. METHODS: Adult patients presenting to the emergency department or hospitalised for inpatient care due to or with COVID-19 from 1 June to 31 December 2021 in two Swiss hospitals were eligible. The primary endpoint was patients' perceived healthcare-associated discrimination, measured with the Discrimination in Medical Settings (DMS) scale. Secondary endpoints included different aspects of perceived quality of care and symptoms of psychological distress measured with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. RESULTS: Non-vaccinated patients (n = 113) had significantly higher DMS scores compared to vaccinated patients (n = 80) (mean: 9.54 points [SD: 4.84] vs 7.79 points [SD: 1.85]; adjusted difference: 1.18 [95% CI: 0.04-2.33 points]) and 21 of 80 vaccinated patients felt discriminated against vs 54 of 113 non-vaccinated patients (adjusted OR: 2.09 [95% CI: 1.10-3.99 ]). Non-vaccinated patients reported lower scores regarding respectful treatment by the nursing team (mean: 8.39 points [SD: 2.39] vs 9.30 points [SD: 1.09]; adjusted difference: -0.6 [95% CI: -1.18 - -0.02 points]). CONCLUSION: We found an association between vaccination status and perceived healthcare-associated discrimination. Healthcare workers should act in a professional manner regardless of a patient's vaccination status; in doing so, they might prevent the creation of negative perceptions in patients.

Determinants of workload-related clinician stress levels in general hospital consultation liaison psychiatry services during the COVID-19 pandemic in England and Ireland. Short report.

OBJECTIVE: To explore workload-related stress levels experienced by consultation liaison psychiatry (CLP) staff in England and Ireland, and factors relevant to such a burden, during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Data were obtained for England and Ireland from a European survey among CLP services in general hospitals spread via CLP networks (11th June - 3rd October 2021). The heads of respective CLP services in general hospitals responded on behalf of each service, on 100 CLP hospital staff in total. DEPENDENT VARIABLE: workload-related stress levels in CLP services due to COVID-19 (0-10 point scale). INDEPENDENT VARIABLES: hospital size, CLP service size, degree of hospital involvement in COVID-19-related care, and the number of support options available to hospital staff. Spearman's rho correlation analyses were performed. RESULTS: There was a significant association between the hospital's involvement in COVID-19-related care and workload-related stress levels as reported by CLP staff: r(22) = 0.41, p = 0.045, R2 = 0.17. There were no significant associations between workload-related stress levels and other variables including staff support (p = 0.74). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that perceived workload-related stress levels of CLP staff during the COVID-19 pandemic can be an indicator of COVID-19 involvement of the hospitals. Staff support seemed not to alleviate work stress in the context of the pandemic. Healthcare policies should improve working conditions for CLP hospital staff that play an essential role from a population health perspective. Rigorous measures may be needed to ensure mental healthcare provision remains tenable and sustainable in the long term.

Integrative group psychotherapy for patients with somatic symptom disorder: A randomized controlled trial.

The study aimed to determine whether specific integrative group psychotherapy (IGPT), based on CBT, combined with techniques of psychodynamic therapy and mindful body and emotional awareness is more effective than non-specific supportive group psychotherapy (SGPT) and treatment as usual (TAU) alone. A total of 120 SSD patients were randomly assigned to IGPT, SGPT or TAU groups. Both IGPT and SGPT showed significantly lower SSD-12 scores at the 4, 8, and 12-week follow-ups compared to TAU. No significant differences were observed between IGPT and SGPT at any follow-up point. These findings highlight the potential benefits of group psychotherapy in SSD treatment.

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.

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).

Occurrence of sensitive topics during ward round: an ancillary analysis of the BEDSIDE-OUTSIDE trial.

OBJECTIVE: Discussing sensitive topics (eg, medical uncertainty, social issues, non-adherence) during ward rounds is challenging and may negatively impact patient satisfaction with the healthcare they are receiving. In the previous multicentre randomised BEDSIDE-OUTSIDE trial focusing on communication during ward rounds, we investigated the interplay between sensitive topics and low reported satisfaction with care. DESIGN: Pre-planned secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. For this analysis data of the original trial was pooled across intervention groups. SETTING: Three Swiss teaching hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients hospitalised for medical care. INTERVENTIONS: We analysed predefined sensitive health topics and specific elements of communication from audiotapes recorded during ward rounds, for both patients dealing with and without sensitive topics. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was overall patient satisfaction with care; measured on a Visual Analogue Scale from 0 to 100. Secondary endpoints included duration of ward rounds and further satisfaction outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 919 included patients, 474 had at least one sensitive topic including medical uncertainty (n=251), psychiatric comorbidities (n=161), tumour diagnosis (n=137) and social issues (n=125). Compared with patients without sensitive topics, patients with sensitive topics reported lower satisfaction with care (mean (SD), 87.7 (±14.6) vs 90.2 (±12.1), adjusted difference -2.5 (95% CI -4.28 to -0.72), p=0.006. Among patients with sensitive topics, risk factors for low satisfaction included several parameters concerning patient-physician interaction such as disagreements during ward rounds (mean (SD), 14/212 (6.6%) vs 41/254 (16.1%), adjusted OR 2.78 (95% CI 1.47 to 5.27), p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of medical inpatients must deal with sensitive health topics. This is associated with lower satisfaction with care, particularly if the patient perceives the interaction with doctors during ward rounds as unsatisfactory. Educating physicians on specific communication techniques may help improve care for these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03210987.

The Disclosure of Bad News Over the Phone vs. in Person and its Association with Psychological Distress: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Communicating bad news such as a new cancer diagnosis to patients may have a major impact on their well-being. We investigated differences in patients' psychological distress due to the disclosure of bad news by telephone compared to in person in a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We included all studies that investigated anxiety, depressive or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms in adult patients in whom bad news by telephone compared to in person were disclosed. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL from the inception of each database to October 18, 2022. We included randomized and non-randomized trials. RESULTS: We screened 5944 studies and included 11 studies in the qualitative analysis and 9 in the meta-analyses, including four randomized controlled trials. Overall, the quality of studies was moderate to good. There was no difference regarding psychological distress when bad news was disclosed by telephone compared to in person with similar symptom levels of anxiety (3 studies, 285 participants; standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.10 [95% CI -0.15 to 0.35]), depression (3 studies, 284 participants; SMD 0.10 [95% CI -0.30 to 0.49]), and PTSD (2 studies, 171 participants; SMD -0.01 [95% CI -0.48 to 0.36]). Results were similar for satisfaction with care. DISCUSSION: This meta-analysis found no difference regarding psychological distress regardless if bad news were disclosed by telephone or in person, but there were overall only few and heterogeneous studies with a small number of eligible patients. The findings suggest that the modality of disclosure might play a secondary role and the way in which the bad news are communicated might be more important.

Smartphone-Based Psychotherapeutic Interventions in Blended Care of Cancer Survivors: Nested Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is related to not only physical but also mental suffering. Notably, body image disturbances are highly relevant to cancer-related changes often persisting beyond recovery from cancer. Scalable and low-barrier interventions that can be blended with face-to-face psychotherapy for cancer survivors are highly warranted. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to investigate whether smartphone-based bodily interventions are more effective to improve the mood of patients with cancer than smartphone-based fairy tale interventions (control intervention). METHODS: We recruited patients with cancer in 2 Swiss hospitals and conducted daily, fully automated smartphone-based interventions 6 times a week for 5 consecutive weeks, blended with weekly face-to-face group body psychotherapy. We applied 2 types of smartphone-based interventions using a within-subject design, randomly assigning patients daily to either bodily interventions or fairy tales. Each intervention type was presented 3 times a week. For this secondary analysis, 3-level mixed models were estimated with mood assessed by the 3 Multidimensional Mood Questionnaire subscales for good-bad mood, wakefulness, and calmness as key indicators. In addition, the effects on experience of presence, vitality, and burden assessed with visual analog scales were investigated. RESULTS: Based on the data from s=732 interventions performed by 36 participants, good-bad mood improved (ß=.27; 95% CI 0.062-0.483), and participants became calmer (ß=.98; 95% CI 0.740-1.211) following smartphone-based interventions. Wakefulness did not significantly change from pre- to postsmartphone-based intervention (ß=.17; 95% CI -0.081 to 0.412). This was true for both intervention types. There was no interaction effect of intervention type with change in good-bad mood (ß=-.01; 95% CI -0.439 to 0.417), calmness (ß=.22; 95% CI -0.228 to 0.728), or wakefulness (ß=.14; 95% CI -0.354 to 0.644). Experience of presence (ß=.34; 95% CI 0.271-0.417) and vitality (ß=.35; 95% CI 0.268-0.426) increased from pre- to postsmartphone-based intervention, while experience of burden decreased (ß=-0.40; 95% CI -0.481 to 0.311). Again, these effects were present for both intervention types. There were no significant interaction effects of intervention type with pre- to postintervention changes in experience of presence (ß=.14; 95% CI -0.104 to 0.384), experience of vitality (ß=.06; 95% CI -0.152 to 0.265), and experience of burden (ß=-.16; 95% CI -0.358 to 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that both smartphone-based audio-guided bodily interventions and fairy tales have the potential to improve the mood of cancer survivors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03707548; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03707548. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s40359-019-0357-1.

Facilitators and barriers of routine psychosocial distress assessment within a stepped and collaborative care model in a Swiss hospital setting.

BACKGROUND: Stepped and Collaborative Care Models (SCCMs) have shown potential for improving mental health care. Most SCCMs have been used in primary care settings. At the core of such models are initial psychosocial distress assessments commonly in form of patient screening. We aimed to assess the feasibility of such assessments in a general hospital setting in Switzerland. METHODS: We conducted and analyzed eighteen semi-structured interviews with nurses and physicians involved in a recent introduction of a SCCM model in a hospital setting, as part of the SomPsyNet project in Basel-Stadt. Following an implementation research approach, we used the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD) framework for analysis. The TICD distinguishes seven domains: guideline factors, individual healthcare professional factors, patient factors, professional interactions, incentives and resources, capacity for organizational change, and social, political, and legal factors. Domains were split into themes and subthemes, which were used for line-by-line coding. RESULTS: Nurses and physicians reported factors belonging to all seven TICD domains. An appropriate integration of the psychosocial distress assessment into preexisting hospital processes and information technology systems was the most important facilitator. Subjectivity of the assessment, lack of awareness about the assessment, and time constraints, particularly among physicians, were factors undermining and limiting the implementation of the psychosocial distress assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Awareness raising through regular training of new employees, feedback on performance and patient benefits, and working with champions and opinion leaders can likely support a successful implementation of routine psychosocial distress assessments. Additionally, aligning psychosocial distress assessments with workflows is essential to assure the sustainability of the procedure in a working context with commonly limited time.

Group-based body psychotherapy improves appreciation of body awareness in post-treatment cancer patients: A non-randomized clinical trial.

Introduction: Cancer-related impairments often co-occur with bodily disturbances. Body psychotherapy (BPT) can improve bodily wellbeing, yet evidence in cancer survivors is scarce. Hence, we aimed to evaluate whether blended group BPT alleviates bodily disturbances in post-treatment cancer patients. Methods: We conducted a bi-center study (registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, under No. NCT03707548), applying a pre-post convergent parallel design of weekly group BPT interspersed with smartphone-based ambulatory interventions using a waiting-period comparator. We included patients with completed curatively intended treatment for malignant neoplasms, suffering from bodily disturbances. The primary outcome was body image disturbances. Secondary outcomes were experiencing and appreciating body awareness, mental wellbeing, and health-related quality of life. Results: Forty patients (mean age 51.7 years) attended group BPT. Mixed-effect linear regression models contrasting intervention with the waiting period did not show statistically significant differences regarding the primary outcome [Pre-post difference contrasts: 1.44, 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.51 to 4.93, p = 0.339]. However, patients showed greater improvements in appreciating body awareness, measured by the "Body Mindfulness Questionnaire" (BMQ), from pre- to post-intervention as compared to the waiting period (pre-post difference contrasts: 7.31 95% CI: 4.15-10.47, Bonferroni-Holm corrected q = 0.0002). Discussion: We found no evidence that blended group BPT was effective in improving body image disturbances in post-treatment cancer patients, but found indications for an increase in body awareness appreciation. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03707548.

COVID-19-related consultation-liaison (CL) mental health services in general hospitals: A perspective from Europe and beyond.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic posed new challenges for integrated health care worldwide. Our study aimed to describe newly implemented structures and procedures of psychosocial consultation and liaison (CL) services in Europe and beyond, and to highlight emerging needs for co-operation. METHODS: Cross-sectional online survey from June to October 2021, using a self-developed 25-item questionnaire in four language versions (English, French, Italian, German). Dissemination was via national professional societies, working groups, and heads of CL services. RESULTS: Of the participating 259 CL services from Europe, Iran, and parts of Canada, 222 reported COVID-19 related psychosocial care (COVID-psyCare) in their hospital. Among these, 86.5% indicated that specific COVID-psyCare co-operation structures had been established. 50.8% provided specific COVID-psyCare for patients, 38.2% for relatives, and 77.0% for staff. Over half of the time resources were invested for patients. About a quarter of the time was used for staff, and these interventions, typically associated with the liaison function of CL services, were reported as most useful. Concerning emerging needs, 58.1% of the CL services providing COVID-psyCare expressed wishes for mutual information exchange and support, and 64.0% suggested specific changes or improvements that they considered essential for the future. CONCLUSION: Over 80% of participating CL services established specific structures to provide COVID-psyCare for patients, their relatives, or staff. Mostly, resources were committed to patient care and specific interventions were largely implemented for staff support. Future development of COVID-psyCare warrants intensified intra- and inter-institutional exchange and co-operation.

Patients' Preference for Participation in Medical Decision-Making: Secondary Analysis of the BEDSIDE-OUTSIDE Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients may prefer different levels of involvement in decision-making regarding their medical care which may influence their medical knowledge. OBJECTIVE: We investigated associations of patients' decisional control preference (DCP) with their medical knowledge, ward round performance measures (e.g., duration, occurrence of sensitive topics), and perceived quality of care measures (e.g., trust in the healthcare team, satisfaction with hospital stay). DESIGN: This is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled multicenter trial conducted between 2017 and 2019 at 3 Swiss teaching hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients that were hospitalized for inpatient care. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was patients' subjective average knowledge of their medical care (rated on a visual analog scale from 0 to 100). We classified patients as active, collaborative, and passive according to the Control Preference Scale. Data collection was performed before, during, and after the ward round. KEY RESULTS: Among the 761 included patients, those with a passive DCP had a similar subjective average (mean ± SD) knowledge (81.3 ± 19.4 points) compared to patients with a collaborative DCP (78.7 ± 20.3 points) and active DCP (81.3 ± 21.5 points), p = 0.25. Regarding patients' trust in physicians and nurses, we found that patients with an active vs. passive DCP reported significantly less trust in physicians (adjusted difference, - 5.08 [95% CI, - 8.69 to - 1.48 points], p = 0.006) and in nurses (adjusted difference, - 3.41 [95% CI, - 6.51 to - 0.31 points], p = 0.031). Also, patients with an active vs. passive DCP were significantly less satisfied with their hospital stay (adjusted difference, - 7.17 [95% CI, - 11.01 to - 3.34 points], p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients with active DCP have lower trust in the healthcare team and lower overall satisfaction despite similar perceived medical knowledge. The knowledge of a patient's DCP may help to individualize patient-centered care. A personalized approach may improve the patient-physician relationship and increase patients' satisfaction with medical care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03210987).

Post-intensive care syndrome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: A prospective observational cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Intensive care unit patients are at risk for post-intensive care syndrome (PICS), which includes psychological, physical and/or cognitive sequelae after their hospital stay. Our aim was to investigate PICS in adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). METHODS: In this prospective observational cohort study, we assessed risks for PICS at 3 and 12-month follow-up within the following domains: a) physical impairment (EuroQol [EQ-5D-3L]), b) cognitive functioning (Cerebral Performance Category [CPC] score >1, modified Rankin Scale [mRS] >2) and c) psychological burden (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS], Impact of Event Scale-Revised [IES-R]). RESULTS: At 3 months, 69/139 patients (50%) met the definition of PICS including 37% in the physical domain, 25% in the cognitive domain and 13% in the psychological domain. Intubation (OR 2.3, 95%CI 1.1 to 5,0 p = 0.03), sedatives (OR 3.4, 95%CI 1 to 11, p = 0.045), mRS at discharge (OR 4.3, 95%CI 1.70 to 11.01, p = 0.002), CPC at discharge (OR 3.3, 95%CI 1.4 to 7.6, p = 0.005) and post-discharge work loss (OR 13.4, 95%CI 1.7 to 107.5, p = 0.014) were significantly associated with PICS. At 12 months, 52/110 (47%) patients had PICS, which was associated with prolonged duration of rehabilitation, higher APACHE scores, and higher mRS and CPC scores at hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of long-term OHCA survivors show PICS after 3 and 12 months. These high numbers call for more emphasis on appropriate screening and treatment in this patient population. Future studies should evaluate whether early identification of these patients enables preventive strategies and treatment options.

COVID-19-Related Psychosocial Care in General Hospitals: Results of an Online Survey of Psychosomatic, Psychiatric, and Psychological Consultation and Liaison Services in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was accompanied by new challenges for psychosocial health care to enable the support of affected patients, their families, and staff in general hospitals. In this study, we aimed to describe the structures and procedures put in place by psychosomatic, psychiatric, and psychological consultation and liaison (CL) services in German, Austrian, and Swiss general hospitals, and to elucidate the emerging needs for cooperation, networking, and improvement. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey between December 2020 and May 2021, using a 25-item questionnaire derived from relevant literature, professional experience, and consultation with the participating professional societies. The survey was disseminated via national professional societies, relevant working and interest groups, and heads of the above-mentioned CL services. Results: We included responses from 98 CL services in the analyses, with a total response rate of 55% of surveyed hospital CL services; 52 responses originated from Germany, 20 from Austria, and 26 from Switzerland. A total of 77 (79%) of the 98 responding CL services reported that "COVID-19-related psychosocial care" (COVID-psyCare) was provided in their hospital. Among these, 47 CL services (61%) indicated that specific cooperation structures for COVID-psyCare had been established within the hospital. A total of 26 CL services (34%) reported providing specific COVID-psyCare for patients, 19 (25%) for relatives, and 46 (60%) for staff, with 61, 12, and 27% of time resources invested for these target groups, respectively. Regarding emerging needs, 37 (48%) CL services expressed wishes for mutual exchange and support regarding COVID-psyCare, and 39 (51%) suggested future changes or improvements that they considered essential. Conclusion: More than three-quarters of the participating CL services provided COVID-psyCare for patients, their relatives, or staff. The high prevalence of COVID-psyCare services targeting hospital staff emphasizes the liaison function of CL services and indicates the increased psychosocial strain on health care personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic. Future development of COVID-psyCare warrants intensified intra- and interinstitutional exchange and support. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04753242, version 11 February 2021.

Serotonin type 3 receptor subunit gene polymorphisms associated with psychosomatic symptoms in irritable bowel syndrome: A multicenter retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of the serotonin type 3 receptor subunit (HTR3) genes have been associated with psychosomatic symptoms, but it is not clear whether these associations exist in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). AIM: To assess the association of HTR3 polymorphisms with depressive, anxiety, and somatization symptoms in individuals with IBS. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 623 participants with IBS were recruited from five specialty centers in Germany, Sweden, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Ireland. Depressive, anxiety, and somatization symptoms and sociodemographic characteristics were collected. Four functional SNPs - HTR3A c.-42C>T, HTR3B c.386A>C, HTR3C c.489C>A, and HTR3E c.*76G>A - were genotyped and analyzed using the dominant and recessive models. We also performed separate analyses for sex and IBS subtypes. SNP scores were calculated as the number of minor alleles of the SNPs above. The impact of HTR3C c.489C>A was tested by radioligand-binding and calcium influx assays. RESULTS: Depressive and anxiety symptoms significantly worsened with increasing numbers of minor HTR3C c.489C>A alleles in the dominant model (F depressive = 7.475, P depressive = 0.006; F anxiety = 6.535, P anxiety = 0.011). A higher SNP score (range 0-6) was linked to a worsened depressive symptoms score (F = 7.710, P-linear trend = 0.006) in IBS. The potential relevance of the HTR3C SNP was corroborated, showing changes in the expression level of 5-HT3AC variant receptors. CONCLUSION: We have provided the first evidence that HTR3C c.489C>A is involved in depressive and anxiety symptoms in individuals with IBS. The SNP score indicated that an increasing number of minor alleles is linked to the worsening of depressive symptoms in IBS.

Association of Different Restriction Levels With COVID-19-Related Distress and Mental Health in Somatic Inpatients: A Secondary Analysis of Swiss General Hospital Data.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and related countermeasures hinder health care access and affect mental wellbeing of non-COVID-19 patients. There is lack of evidence on distress and mental health of patients hospitalized due to other reasons than COVID-19-a vulnerable population group in two ways: First, given their risk for physical diseases, they are at increased risk for severe courses and death related to COVID-19. Second, they may struggle particularly with COVID-19 restrictions due to their dependence on social support. Therefore, we investigated the association of intensity of COVID-19 restrictions with levels of COVID-19-related distress, mental health (depression, anxiety, somatic symptom disorder, and mental quality of life), and perceived social support among Swiss general hospital non-COVID-19 inpatients. Methods: We analyzed distress of 873 hospital inpatients not admitted for COVID-19, recruited from internal medicine, gynecology, rheumatology, rehabilitation, acute geriatrics, and geriatric rehabilitation wards of three hospitals. We assessed distress due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and four indicators of mental health: depressive and anxiety symptom severity, psychological distress associated with somatic symptoms, and the mental component of health-related quality of life; additionally, we assessed social support. The data collection period was divided into modest (June 9 to October 18, 2020) and strong (October 19, 2020, to April 17, 2021) COVID-19 restrictions, based on the Oxford Stringency Index for Switzerland. Results: An additional 13% (95%-Confidence Interval 4-21%) and 9% (1-16%) of hospital inpatients reported distress related to leisure time and loneliness, respectively, during strong COVID-19 restrictions compared to times of modest restrictions. There was no evidence for changes in mental health or social support. Conclusions: Focusing on the vulnerable population of general hospital inpatients not admitted for COVID-19, our results suggest that tightening of COVID-19 restrictions in October 2020 was associated with increased COVID-19-related distress regarding leisure time and loneliness, with no evidence for a related decrease in mental health. If this association was causal, safe measures to increase social interaction (e.g., virtual encounters and outdoor activities) are highly warranted. Trial registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04269005.

Perception of physicians and nursing staff members regarding outside versus bedside ward rounds: ancillary analysis of the randomised BEDSIDE-OUTSIDE trial.

BACKGROUND: We recently compared the effects of bedside and outside the room ward rounds on patients' knowledge about their medical care. Here, we report preferences of medical and nursing staff members regarding outside versus bedside ward rounds. METHODS: Within this ancillary project of a large multicentre randomised controlled trial, we prospectively conducted a survey of medical and nursing staff members participating in the weekly consultant ward rounds in the internal medicine division of three Swiss teaching hospitals between July 2017 and October 2019. Participants were asked about their preferences on outside versus bedside ward rounds. The primary endpoint was satisfaction of healthcare workers with the ward round measured with a visual analogue scale from 0 to 100. RESULTS: Between July 2017 and October 2019, 919 patients were included in the trial, and we received 891 survey responses (nurses 15.6%, residents 26.8%, attending physicians 29.6%, consultants 7.8% and chief physicians 20.2%. In the overall analysis, mean (± standard deviation) satisfaction of healthcare workers was higher with outside the room than bedside ward rounds (78.03 ± 16.96 versus 68.25 ± 21.10 respectively; age-, gender- and centre-adjusted difference of -10.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] -12.73 to -8.19; p <0.001). Healthcare workers reported better time management, more discussion of sensitive topics and less discomfort when case presentations were conducted outside the room. A stratified subgroup analysis considering the profession, however, showed strong differences, with nurses being more satisfied with bedside rounds (69.20 ± 20.32 versus 65.32 ± 20.92, respectively; adjusted difference 4.35, 95% CI -1.79 to 10.51; p <0.001), whereas attending physicians showed higher satisfaction with outside the room rounds (82.63 ± 13.87 versus 66.59 ± 21.82; adjusted difference -16.51, 95% CI -20.29 to -12.72; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: While bedside ward rounds are considered more patient centred and are preferred by the nursing staff, physicians prefer outside the room presentation of patients during ward rounds because of the perceived better discussion of sensitive topics, better time management and less staff discomfort. Continuous training including medical communication techniques may help to increase satisfaction of physicians with bedside ward rounds. Trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03210987.

Long COVID 1 year after hospitalisation for COVID-19: a prospective bicentric cohort study.

AIMS OF THE STUDY: There is increasing interest in better understanding of long COVID, a condition characterised by long-term sequelae ­ appearing or persisting after the typical convalescence period ­ of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Herein, we describe long-term outcomes regarding residual symptoms and psychological distress in hospitalised patients 1 year after COVID-19. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included consecutive adult patients hospitalised for confirmed COVID-19 in two Swiss tertiary-care hospitals between March and June 2020. The primary endpoint was evidence of long COVID 1 year after discharge, defined as ≥1 persisting or new symptom related to COVID-19, from a predefined list of symptoms. Secondary endpoints included psychological distress and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). RESULTS: Among 90 patients included in the study, 63 (70%) had symptoms of long COVID 1 year after hospitalisation, particularly fatigue (46%), concentration difficulties (31%), shortness of breath (21%) and post-exertion malaise (20%). Three predictors, namely duration of hospitalisation (odds ratio [OR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00­1.22; p = 0.041), severity of illness (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.04­1.37; p = 0.013), and self-perceived overall health status 30 days after hospitalisation (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94­1.00; p = 0.027) were associated with long COVID. Regarding secondary endpoints, 16 (18%) experienced psychological distress and 3 (3.3%) patients had symptoms of PTSD. CONCLUSION: A high proportion of COVID-19 patients report symptoms of long COVID 1 year after hospitalisation, which negatively affects their quality of life. The most important risk factors were severe initial presentation of COVID-19 with long hospital stays.

Pain and psyche in a patient with irritable bowel syndrome: chicken or egg? A time series case report.

BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) appears to have a bidirectional interaction with both depressive and anxiety-related complaints. However, it remains unclear how exactly the psychological complaints, at the individual level, are related to somatic symptoms on a daily basis. This single case study investigates how somatic and psychological variables are temporally related in a patient with irritable bowel syndrome. CASE REPORT: The patient was a woman in her mid-twenties with an IBS diagnosis. She reported frequent soft bowel movements (5-6 times per day), as well as flatulence and abdominal pain. She resembled a typical IBS patient; however, a marked feature of the patient was her high motivation for psychosomatic treatment as well as her willingness to try new strategies regarding the management of her symptoms. As an innovative approach this single case study used a longitudinal, observational, time series design. The patient answered questions regarding somatic and psychological variables daily over a period of twelve weeks with an online diary. The diary data was analysed using an autoregressive (VAR) modeling approach. Time series analyses showed that in most variables, strong same-day correlations between somatic (abdominal pain, daily impairment) and psychological time series (including coping strategies) were present. The day-lagged relationships indicated that higher values in abdominal pain on one day were predictive of higher values in the psychological variables on the following day (e.g. nervousness, tension, catastrophizing, hopelessness). The use of positive thinking as a coping strategy was helpful in reducing the pain on the following days. CONCLUSION: In the presented case we found a high correlation between variables, with somatic symptoms temporally preceding psychological variables. In addition, for this patient, the use of positive thoughts as a coping strategy was helpful in reducing pain.

Interventions to Improve Communication at Hospital Discharge and Rates of Readmission: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Shortcomings in the education of patients at hospital discharge are associated with higher risks for treatment failure and hospital readmission. Whether improving communication at discharge through specific interventions has an association with patient-relevant outcomes remains unclear. Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the association of communication interventions at hospital discharge with readmission rates and other patient-relevant outcomes. Data Sources: PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were systematically searched from the inception of each database to February 28, 2021. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials that randomized patients to receiving a discharge communication intervention or a control group were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers extracted data on outcomes and trial and patient characteristics. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Data were pooled using a random-effects model, and risk ratios (RRs) with corresponding 95% CIs are reported. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was hospital readmission, and secondary outcomes included adherence to treatment regimen, patient satisfaction, mortality, and emergency department reattendance 30 days after hospital discharge. Results: We included 60 randomized clinical trials with a total of 16 070 patients for the qualitative synthesis and 19 trials with a total of 3953 patients for the quantitative synthesis of the primary outcome. Of these, 11 trials had low risk of bias, 6 trials had high risk of bias, and 2 trials had unclear risk of bias. Communication interventions at discharge were significantly associated with lower readmission rates (179 of 1959 patients [9.1%] in intervention groups vs 270 of 1994 patients [13.5%] in control groups; RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56-0.84), higher adherence to treatment regimen (1729 of 2009 patients [86.1%] in intervention groups vs 1599 of 2024 patients [79.0%] in control groups; RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.13-1.37), and higher patient satisfaction (1187 of 1949 patients [60.9%] in intervention groups vs 991 of 2002 patients [49.5%] in control groups; RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.20-1.66). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that communication interventions at discharge are significantly associated with fewer hospital readmissions, higher treatment adherence, and higher patient satisfaction and thus are important to facilitate the transition of care.

A qualitative study to investigate Swiss hospital personnel's perceived importance of and experiences with patient's mental-somatic multimorbidities.

BACKGROUND: Mental-somatic multimorbidity in general hospital settings is associated with long hospital stays, frequent rehospitalization, and a deterioration of disease course, thus, highlighting the need for treating hospital patients more holistically. However, there are several challenges to overcome to address mental health conditions in these settings. This study investigated hospital personnel's perceived importance of and experiences with mental-somatic multimorbidities of patients in hospital settings in Basel, Switzerland, with special consideration of the differences between physicians and nurses. METHODS: Eighteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with nurses (n = 10) and physicians (n = 8) in different hospitals located in Basel, Switzerland. An inductive approach of the framework analysis was used to develop the themes. RESULTS: Four themes emerged from the data analysis: 1) the relevance of mental-somatic multimorbidity within general hospitals, 2) health professionals managing their emotions towards mental health, 3) knowledge and competencies in treating patients with mental-somatic multimorbidity, and 4) interprofessional collaboration for handling mental-somatic multimorbidity in hospital settings.The mental-somatic multimorbidities in general hospital patients was found to be relevant among all hospital professionals, although the priority of mental health was higher for nurses than for physicians. This might have resulted from different working environments or in efficient interprofessional collaboration in general hospitals. Physicians and nurses both highlighted the difficulties of dealing with stigma, a lack of knowledge of mental disorders, the emphasis place on treating somatic disorders, and competing priorities and work availability, which all hindered the adequate handling of mental-somatic multimorbidity in general hospitals. CONCLUSION: To support health professionals to integrate mental health into their work, proper environments within general hospitals are needed, such as private rooms in which to communicate with patients. In addition, changes in curriculums and continuing training are needed to improve the understanding of mental-somatic multimorbidities and reduce negative stereotypes. Similarly, interprofessional collaboration between health professionals needs to be strengthened to adequately identify and treat mentally multimorbid patients. A stronger focus should be placed on physicians to improve their competencies in considering patient mental health in their daily somatic treatment care.