Team-building through sailing: effects on health status, job satisfaction and work performance of health care professionals involved in organ and tissue donation.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of a team-building learning project on job satisfaction, psychological wellbeing, and performance of health care workers involved in the process of organ and tissue donation. The project was conducted between June and September 2011 and consisted of two one-day meetings and a one week sailing, involving 20 staff members. GHQ-12, MBI-HSS, and 25 items taken from the Multidimensional Organizational Health Questionnaire (MOHQ) were used to assess health status, burnout, and job satisfaction. Results of the descriptive analyses were expressed as mean ± SD and as counts and percentages; Chi-square test was used to evaluate statistical significance of differences before and after the initiative. 6 (30,0%) participants showed the likelihood to suffering from anxiety and depression (i.e. recognized as 'cases' by the GHQ-12), 3 (15.0%) of them at baseline and 3 (15.0%), different from the previous ones, in the post-intervention. The presence of stress was revealed in 9 (45.0%) and 12 subjects (60.0%) before and after the experience, respectively (6 subjects showed the presence of stress in both circumstances). We documented 4 burnout cases, 3 (15.0%) at baseline and 1 (5.0%) after the experience. Nevertheless, about 80% of the participants showed a high degree ofjob satisfaction, in terms of positive influence of job in the professional satisfaction and of clear satisfaction for the organization, during both evaluation. In respect to 2010, the number of organ donors and that of ocular tissue donors improved of about 16% and 10%, respectively, during the year of the project and in the following year (mean value). We recognize that our team-building project for personnel involved in the stressful and demanding setting of organ and tissue donation, worthwhile and recompensing at the same time, possibly influenced the personal commitment and the quality of job provided. The high level of stress showed by participants should be appropriately targeted in order to prevent burnout.

How to improve care in outpatients with cirrhosis and ascites: a new model of care coordination by consultant hepatologists.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The development of ascites in patients with cirrhosis is associated with a high rate of health care utilization. New models of specialized caregiving support are necessary to optimize its management. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and financial sustainability of the "Care management check-up" as a new model of specialized caregiving support based on a series of diagnostic facilities performed in real time and on the integrated activity of consultant hepatologists at the hospital unit for outpatients, dedicated nurses, physicians in training and primary physicians, compared to standard care in outpatients with cirrhosis and ascites. METHODS: 100 cirrhotic patients admitted to our hospital were allocated, after discharge, to the "Care management check-up" group (group 1), or to the "Standard outpatient care" group (group 2), and followed prospectively as outpatients up to death or for at least 12 months. Patients of the two groups could also access to a "Day hospital" when an invasive procedure was required. In group 1, the "Care management check-up" and the "Day hospital" taken together defined the "Care management program". RESULTS: Twelve-month mortality was higher in group 2 than in group 1 (45.7% vs. 23.1%, p<0.025). The rate of 30-day readmission was also higher in group 2 (42.4% vs. 15.4%, p<0.01). The global cost attributable to the management per patient-month of life was lower (1479.19 ± 2184.43 €) in group 1 than (2816.13 ± 3893.03 €) in group 2 (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that this new model of specialized caregiving reduces 12-month mortality in patients with cirrhosis and ascites as well as the global health care costs for their management.

Comparison of Adverse Effects of Two SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines Administered in Workers of the University of Padova.

Introduction: In Italy, on December 2020, workers in the education sector were identified as a priority population to be vaccinated against COVID-19. The first authorised vaccines were the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA (BNT162b2) and the Oxford-AstraZeneca adenovirus vectored (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) vaccines. Aim: To investigate the adverse effects of two SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in a real-life preventive setting at the University of Padova. Methods: Vaccination was offered to 10116 people. Vaccinated workers were asked to voluntarily report symptoms via online questionnaires sent to them 3 weeks after the first and the second shot. Results: 7482 subjects adhered to the vaccination campaign and 6681 subjects were vaccinated with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine and 137 (fragile subjects) with the BNT162b2 vaccine. The response rate for both questionnaires was high (i.e., >75%). After the first shot, the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine caused more fatigue (p < 0.001), headache (p < 0.001), myalgia (p < 0.001), tingles (p = 0.046), fever (p < 0.001), chills (p < 0.001), and insomnia (p = 0.016) than the BNT162b2 vaccine. After the second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine, more myalgia (p = 0.033), tingles (p = 0.022), and shivers (p < 0.001) than the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine were elicited. The side effects were nearly always transient. Severe adverse effects were rare and mostly reported after the first dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. They were dyspnoea (2.3%), blurred vision (2.1%), urticaria (1.3%), and angioedema (0.4%). Conclusions: The adverse effects of both vaccines were transient and, overall, mild in severity.

Posttraumatic stress disorder and depression in heart transplantation recipients: the relationship with outcome and adherence to medical treatment.

OBJECTIVE: There is growing evidence of the importance of psychiatric risk factors for predicting the outcome of heart transplantation (HT) recipients. The aim of our study was to investigate the role of major depression and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the prediction of the outcome of HT in a consecutive sample of 107 recipients. METHOD: All subjects of the study underwent a structured diagnostic interview for assessing the presence of pretransplant and posttransplant major depression and transplantation-related PTSD 1 to 5 years after HT. The adherence to medical treatment was assessed some months after the structured interview. The medical outcome (acute rejections, cancer, mortality) was followed up for 8 years on average after the interview, using a prospective design. RESULTS: Estimated frequency of psychiatric diagnoses after HT was 12% for transplantation-related PTSD and 41% for major depression. The presence of an episode of major depression prior to HT is a significant independent risk factor for posttransplant malignancies. Age, posttransplant malignancies and poor adherence are significant predictors of mortality in the survival analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The present study highlights the importance of the assessment of psychosocial variables and psychiatric diagnoses before and after transplantation in HT recipients. Our findings have important clinical implications and require replication with larger samples.

Experience of donation and quality of life in living kidney and liver donors.

Italian guidelines on living donation demand that we ascertain the donor's free and informed consent. Assessments to do so have to be conducted by an independent 'third party' who has nothing to do with the medical team treating the recipient. From February 2002 to December 2006, the Veneto Regional Authority's Third Party Commission evaluated 201 living liver and kidney donors. A sample of these were contacted after their surgery to assess their living donation experience and quality of life (QoL); 81 were eligible for the assessment and 69 (85.2%) responded. All donors involved in the study completed an anonymous document that included the SF-36 and a questionnaire on their donation experience. The majority (96%) of the sample expressed a positive global opinion of the experience. We concluded that the donation had positive effects on their QoL and that family support had a fundamental influence on their general well-being, and their psychic balance in particular. Some crucial issues emerged, however, i.e. 11% of donors judged the information received before the operation inadequate, 17% reported a subjective perception of bodily changes after the operation and 14% were concerned about their current health: these findings emphasize the importance of informing potential donors thoroughly before they submit to surgery.