Association of socioeconomic deprivation with outcomes in critically ill adult patients: an observational prospective multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The influence of socioeconomic deprivation on health inequalities is established, but its effect on critically ill patients remains unclear, due to inconsistent definitions in previous studies. METHODS: Prospective multicenter cohort study conducted from March to June 2018 in eight ICUs in the Greater Paris area. All admitted patients aged ≥ 18 years were enrolled. Socioeconomic phenotypes were identified using hierarchical clustering, based on education, health insurance, income, and housing. Association of phenotypes with 180-day mortality was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: A total of 1,748 patients were included. Median age was 62.9 [47.4-74.5] years, 654 (37.4%) patients were female, and median SOFA score was 3 [1-6]. Study population was clustered in five phenotypes with increasing socioeconomic deprivation. Patients from phenotype A (n = 958/1,748, 54.8%) were without socioeconomic deprivation, patients from phenotype B (n = 273/1,748, 15.6%) had only lower education levels, phenotype C patients (n = 117/1,748, 6.7%) had a cumulative burden of 1[1-2] deprivations and all had housing deprivation, phenotype D patients had 2 [1-2] deprivations, all of them with income deprivation, and phenotype E patients (n = 93/1,748, 5.3%) included patients with 3 [2-4] deprivations and included all patients with health insurance deprivation. Patients from phenotypes D and E were younger, had fewer comorbidities, more alcohol and opiate use, and were more frequently admitted due to self-harm diagnoses. Patients from phenotype C (predominant housing deprivation), were more frequently admitted with diagnoses related to chronic respiratory diseases and received more non-invasive positive pressure ventilation. Following adjustment for age, sex, alcohol and opiate use, socioeconomic phenotypes were not associated with increased 180-day mortality: phenotype A (reference); phenotype B (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval CI 0.65-1.12); phenotype C (HR, 0.56; 95% CI 0.34-0.93); phenotype D (HR, 1.09; 95% CI 0.78-1.51); phenotype E (HR, 1.20; 95% CI 0.73-1.96). CONCLUSIONS: In a universal health care system, the most deprived socioeconomic phenotypes were not associated with increased 180-day mortality. The most disadvantaged populations exhibit distinct characteristics and medical conditions that may be addressed through targeted public health interventions.

The Relative Contributions of Occupational and Community Risk Factors for COVID-19 among Hospital Workers: The HOP-COVID Cohort Study.

The relative contributions of occupational and community sources of COVID-19 among health-care workers (HCWs) are still subject to debate. In a cohort study at a 2814-bed tertiary medical center (five hospitals) in the Paris area of France, we assessed the proportion of hospital-acquired cases among staff and identified risk factors. Between May 2020 and June 2021, HCWs were invited to complete a questionnaire on their COVID-19 risk factors. RT-PCR and serology test results were retrieved from the virology department. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to account for clustering by hospital. The prevalence of COVID-19 was 15.6% (n = 213/1369 respondents) overall, 29.7% in the geriatric hospitals, and 56.8% of the infections were hospital-acquired. On multivariable analyses adjusted for COVID-19 incidence and contact in the community, a significantly higher risk was identified for staff providing patient care (especially nursing assistants), staff from radiology/functional assessment units and stretcher services, and staff working on wards with COVID-19 clusters among patients or HCWs. The likelihood of infection was greater in geriatric wards than in intensive care units. The presence of significant occupational risk factors after adjustment for community exposure is suggestive of a high in-hospital risk and emphasizes the need for stronger preventive measures-especially in geriatric settings. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04386759.

Corporeal rehabilitation to manage acute stress in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients often endure discomfort and distress brought about by their medical environment and the subjective experience of their stay. Distress, pain, and loss of control are important predictors of future neuropsychiatric disorders. Depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress are common after discharge. We aimed at mitigating acute stress and discomfort via a novel intervention based on body image rehabilitation and rehabilitation of senses performed following a holistic approach guided by positive communication (corporeal rehabilitation care, CRC). RESULTS: We conducted a prospective observational study on 297 consecutively enrolled patients participating in at least one CRC session. Benefits of CRC were assessed on both subjective analogical scales of stress, pain, and well-being criteria, and objective clinical measures of dyspnea, respiratory rate, and systolic arterial pressure, just after CRC and long after (a median of 72 min later) to estimate its remote effect. Results showed that CRC had a positive effect on all overt measures of distress (acute stress, pain, discomfort) just after CRC and remotely. This beneficial effect was also observed on dyspnea and respiratory rate. Results also showed that best CRC responders had higher baseline values of stress and heart rate and lower baseline values of well-being score, indicating that the care targeted the population most at risk of developing psychological sequelae. Interestingly, a positive CRC response was associated with a better survival even after adjustment for physiologic severity, indicating a potential to identify patients prompt to better respond to other therapeutics and/or rehabilitation. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the feasibility of an innovative holistic patient-centered care approach and its short-term positive effects on critical parameters that are considered risk factors for post-intensive care syndrome. Further studies are warranted to study long-term benefits for patients, and overall benefits for relatives as well as ICU staff.

Use of Evidence-Based Practice Among Healthcare Professionals After the Implementation of a New Competency-Based Curriculum.

BACKGROUND: Although evidence-based practice (EBP) has been spreading since the 1990s, it has not yet been sufficiently implemented. AIM: Following the reform of initial training for healthcare professions in France 2012, we sought to determine whether the new curriculum was associated with more frequent use of EBP. METHODS: We performed an online, cross-sectional survey of nurses, occupational therapists, and podiatrists (divided into pre- and post-reform groups) in June 2018. The questionnaire covered demographic data, use of EBP, and the perception of EBP. As holding a master's degree may enhance knowledge and use of EBP, we adjusted for this variable. Categories to analyze qualitative data were created regarding the five steps in EBP and its definition. RESULTS: The total sample was N = 595 (pre-reform group n = 301; post-reform group n = 294). The proportion of respondents who frequently read the professional literature was lower in the post-reform group than in the pre-reform group (33% vs. 54%, respectively; OR [95% CI] = .52 [.37-.73]; p < .001). The main stated reasons for reading the professional literature were "keeping up to date with practice" and "making clinical decisions." Respondents in both groups mentioned a lack of time as the most frequent barrier to reading the literature (82%), a lack of access to bibliographical resources, and that EBP was not encouraged. Most professionals limited their definition of EBP to reading the literature and implementing research results. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: There is a need to teach the five steps of EBP more explicitly and to embed its position into daily practice, for example, through reflective analysis practice. Professional trainings about EBP should be offered on a regular basis. Guidance coming from the healthcare directorate should include expected daily practice time for reading and journal club and giving more access to international healthcare literature.

How caregivers view patient comfort and what they do to improve it: a French survey.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are exposed to many sources of discomfort. Most of these are related to the patient's condition, but ICU design or how care is organized also can contribute. The present survey was designed to describe the opinions of ICU caregivers on sources of patient discomfort and to determine how they were dealt with in practice. The architectural and organizational characteristics of ICUs also were analyzed in relation to patient comfort. METHODS: An online, closed-ended questionnaire was developed. ICU caregivers registered at the French society of intensive care were invited to complete this questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 915 staff members (55% nurses) from 264 adult and 28 pediatric ICUs completed the questionnaire. Analysis of the answers reveals that: 68% of ICUs had only single-occupancy rooms, and 66% had natural light in each room; ICU patients had access to television in 59% of ICUs; a clock was present in each room in 68% of ICUs. Visiting times were <4 h in 49% of adult ICUs, whereas 64% of respondents considered a 24-h policy to be very useful or essential to patients' well-being. A nurse-driven analgesia protocol was available in 42% of units. For caregivers, the main sources of patient discomfort were anxiety, feelings of restraint, noise, and sleep disturbances. Paramedics generally considered discomfort related to thirst, lack of privacy, and the lack of space and time references, whereas almost 50% of doctors ignored these sources of discomfort. Half of caregivers indicated they assessed sleep quality. A minority of caregivers declared regular use of noise-reduction strategies. Twenty percent of respondents admitted to having non-work-related conversations during patient care, and only 40% indicated that care often was or always was provided without closing doors. Family participation in care was planned in very few adult ICUs. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this survey showed that ICUs are poorly equipped to ensure patient privacy and rest. Access by loved ones and their participation in care also is limited. The data also highlighted that some sources of discomfort are less often taken into account by caregivers, despite being considered to contribute significantly.