Perceived Hospital Preparedness Is Negatively Associated With Pandemic-Induced Psychological Vulnerability in Primary Care Employees: A Multicentre Cross-Sectional Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound negative impact on the psychological wellbeing of healthcare providers (HPs), but little is known about the factors that positively predict mental health of primary care staff during these dire situations. METHODS: We conducted an online questionnaire survey among 702 emergency department workers across 10 hospitals in Switzerland and Belgium following the first COVID-19 wave in 2020, to explore their psychological vulnerability, perceived concerns, self-reported impact and level of pandemic workplace preparedness. Participants included physicians, nurses, psychologists and nondirect care employees (administrative staff). We tested for predictors of psychological vulnerability through both an exploratory cross-correlation with rigorous correction for multiple comparisons and model-based path modelling. RESULTS: Findings showed that the self-reported impact of COVID-19 at work, concerns about contracting COVID-19 at work, and a lack of personal protective equipment were strong positive predictors of Depression, Anxiety, and Stress, and low Resilience. Instead, knowledge of the degree of preparedness of the hospital/department, especially in the presence of a predetermined contingency plan for an epidemic and training sessions about protective measures, showed the opposite effect, and were associated with lower psychological vulnerability. All effects were confirmed after accounting for confounding factors related to gender, age, geographical location and the role played by HPs in the hospital/department. CONCLUSIONS: Difficult working conditions during the pandemic had a major impact on the psychological wellbeing of emergency department HPs, but this effect might have been lessened if they had been informed about adequate measures for minimizing the risk of exposure.

[COVID-19 and Pulmonary Ultrasound: An Innovative Approach to the Disease in the GP's Office]. / COVID-19 ed ecografia polmonare: un approccio innovativo alla malattia nello studio medico di medicina generale.

COVID-19 and Pulmonary Ultrasound: An Innovative Approach to the Disease in the GP's Office Abstract. SARS-CoV-2 disease has required significant efforts from treating physicians to adapt their working methods. In a short time, we had to get to know the disease and implement a strategy for patient care. The goal is to provide safe consultation in the office (without contaminating patients), providing an early diagnosis and reproducible follow-up. Lung ultrasound proved to be a safe and reliable method for diagnosing this disease during the pandemic. This article describes the experience gained by treating 116 patients between February 2020 and March 2021.

Sommario. La malattia da SARS-CoV-2 ha richiesto ai medici curanti uno sforzo notevole nell'adattare il proprio metodo di lavoro. In breve tempo abbiamo dovuto conoscere la malattia e attuare una strategia per la presa in carico dei pazienti. Lo scopo è quello di riuscire a fornire nella Praxis una consulenza sicura (senza contaminazioni dei pazienti), con diagnosi precoce e follow-up riproducibile. L'ecografia polmonare è risultata essere una metodica sicura e affidabile per la diagnosi di questa malattia durante la pandemia. In questo articolo viene descritta l'esperienza conseguita su 116 pazienti nel periodo compreso tra febbraio 2020 a marzo 2021.

A randomized phase II trial of two different 4-drug combinations in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: cisplatin, capecitabine, gemcitabine plus either epirubicin or docetaxel (PEXG or PDXG regimen).

PURPOSE: PEFG regimen (P:cisplatin, E:epirubicin, F:5-fluorouracil, G:gemcitabine) significantly prolonged progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA) with respect to standard gemcitabine. The current trial was aimed at assessing whether the replacement of E with docetaxel (D) may improve 6 months PFS (PFS6). METHODS: Chemo-naive patients with stage III or metastatic PA received P (30 mg/m(2) day 1 and 15), G (800 mg/m(2) day 1 and 15), and capecitabine (1,250 mg/m(2)/day days 1-28, without a break) and were randomized to receive either D at 25-30 mg/m(2) day 1 and 15 (arm A: PDXG regimen) or E at 30 mg/m(2) day 1 and 15 (arm B: PEXG regimen). Cycles were repeated every 28 days for a maximum of 6 months. The Fleming design was used to calculate the sample size on the probability of being PFS6. Assuming P0 = 40% and P1 = 60%, α = 0.05 and ß = 0.10; the study was to enroll 52 patients per arm. RESULTS: Between July 2005 and September 2008, 105 patients were enrolled, stratified by stage and randomized. Patients' characteristics were (A/B) the following: median age 61/59, PS >70 92/88%, metastatic disease 66/65%. PFS6 was 58%, and median OS was 11 months in both arms. A partial response was observed in 60/37% of patients. Main per cycle G3-4 toxicity was the following: neutropenia 4/13%, thrombocytopenia 2/4%, anemia 4/4%, and fatigue 6/3%. CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of D instead of E yielded more objective response and less G3-4 neutropenia but did not improve PFS and OS. The present trial confirms the relevant impact on outcome of advanced PA of 4-drug regimens.