Routine vs. On-Demand Discharge Planning Strategy in Intermediate-Risk Patients for Complex Discharge: a Cluster-Randomized, Multiple Crossover Trial.

BACKGROUND: Early hospital discharge planning can help to reduce the length of stay and unplanned readmission in high-risk patients. Therefore, it is important to select patients who can benefit from a personalized discharge planning based on validated tools. The modified Blaylock Risk Assessment Screening Score (BRASS) is routinely used in the Molinette Hospital (Turin, Italy) to screen patients at high risk for discharge, but the effectiveness of the discharge planning is uncertain in intermediate-risk patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the best strategy for discharge planning by the Continuity of Care Hospital Unit (CCHU) in intermediate-risk patients according to modified BRASS. DESIGN: Cluster-randomized, multiple crossover trial. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients admitted in the Medicine and Neurology departments of the Molinette Hospital in Turin, Italy, between June 2018 and May 2019 with a BRASS intermediate risk. INTERVENTIONS: A routine discharge planning strategy (RDP, Routine Discharge Plan), which involved the management of all intermediate-risk patients, was compared to an on-demand discharge planning strategy (DDP, on-Demand Discharge Planning), which involved only selected patients referred to the CCHU by ward staff. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the 90-day hospital readmission for any cause (HR90). Secondary outcomes included the prolonged length of stay (pLOS). KEY RESULTS: Eight hundred two patients (median age 79 years) were included (414 RDP and 388 DDP). Comparing RDP vs. DDP periods, HR90 was 27.6% and 27.3% (OR 1.01, 90%CI 0.76-1.33, p = 0.485); and pLOS was 47 (11.4%) and 40 (10.3%) (OR 1.24, 95%CI 0.72-2.13, p = 0.447), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the largest randomized study conducted to compare the effectiveness of two different hospital discharge planning strategies. In patients with intermediate risk of hospital discharge, a RDP offers no advantage over a DDP and results in an unnecessary increase in staff workload. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03436940.

Interprofessional Communication Team for Caregivers of Patients Hospitalized in the COVID-19 Wards: Results From an Italian Experience.

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, emergency restrictions did not allow clinician family meetings and relatives' visits. In Molinette Hospital, a new communication model between healthcare providers and families of COVID-19 affected patients was developed by a team of physicians and psychologists. The study's aims were to investigate caregivers' distress and to analyse their satisfaction with the communications provided. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among caregivers of patients of Molinette Hospital COVID wards. Between April and June 2020, all caregivers were contacted 2 weeks after the patient's discharge/death to assess their satisfaction with the communications received through an online survey. Results: A total of 155 caregivers completed the survey. Caregivers' distress level was found to be higher in women than men (p = 0.048) and in caregivers whose relative died compared to the caregivers whose relative was discharged (p < 0.001). More than 85% of caregivers defined communication "excellent"/"very good"; being male was associated with higher satisfaction levels than women (ß = -0.165, p = 0.046). Besides daily communication, 63 caregivers (40.6%) received additional support from a psychologist of the team. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study presenting, in an emergency, a new model of communication provided by a team of physicians and psychologists, and analyzing satisfaction with it. This model was highly appreciated by caregivers and it limited the discomfort caused by the restrictions on relatives' visits. It would be interesting to further evaluate the possibility of extending a communication model that includes doctors and psychologists in routine clinical practice.

Clinical Relevance of Tubular Breast Carcinoma: Large Retrospective Study and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Tubular carcinoma (TC) is a low proliferative grade 1 (G1) breast cancer (BC). Despite its favorable outcome and allegedly lower aggressiveness, patients are treated like other luminal G1 BC, with radiotherapy (RT) and hormonal therapy (HT). We performed: (1) a retrospective study comparing a TC cohort and a control series of luminal G1 BC and (2) a systematic review and meta-analysis focused on TC outcome. Materials and Methods: We selected a series of 572 G1 luminal BC patients [111 TC, 350 not otherwise specified (NOS), and 111 special-type (ST) BC] with follow-up and clinico-pathological data, who underwent local excision followed by RT at Città della Salute e della Scienza Hospital, Turin. Moreover, 22 and 13 studies were included in qualitative and quantitative meta-analysis, respectively. Results: TCs were generally smaller (≤10 mm) (P < 0.001), with lower lymph node involvement (P < 0.001). TCs showed no local and/or distant recurrences, while 16 NOS and 2 ST relapsed (P = 0.036). Kaplan-Meier curves confirmed more favorable TC outcome (DFI: log-rank test P = 0.03). Meta-analysis data, including the results of our study, showed that the pooled DFI rate was 96.4 and 91.8% at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Meta-regression analyses did not show a significant influence of RT nor HT on the DFI at 10 years. Conclusions: Compared to the other G1 BCs, TCs have an excellent outcome. The meta-analysis shows that TC recurrences are infrequent, and HT and RT have limited influence on prognosis. Hence, accurate diagnosis of TC subtype is critical to ensuring a tailored treatment approach.

Healthcare Workers' (HCWs) attitudes towards mandatory influenza vaccination: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Influenza is a disease responsible for thousands of deaths every year. Although healthcare workers (HCWs) represent a way of contagion for patients, vaccination coverage among them is low. Mandatory vaccination has been proposed, but controversies remain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the acceptance of mandatory vaccination by HCWs, and to investigate associated characteristics. MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL and Web of Science were used to search for studies assessing the topic. PRISMA statements were followed. Of the 13,457 univocal records found, 52 studies were included in the systematic review and 40 in the meta-analysis. The pooled proportion of HCWs accepting the policy was of 61% (95% CI: 53%- 68%) but with great heterogeneity between continents (from 54% in Europe to 69% in Asia) and in different professionals (from 40% in nurses to 80% in students). Vaccinated HCWs agreed more frequently with mandatory vaccination than non-vaccinated ones. More studies that consider mandatory vaccination acceptance as the main outcome are needed, but the results of this study confirm that in some settings the majority of HCWs favour mandatory vaccination. This, combined with effects that a flu epidemic could have if overlapped to pandemics with similar symptoms, requires renewed considerations on mandatory vaccination.

Knowledge and beliefs on vaccines among a sample of Italian pregnant women: results from the NAVIDAD study.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy is an emerging phenomenon in European countries and leads to decreasing trends in infant vaccine coverage. The aim of this study was to analyze the level of confidence and correct awareness about immunizations, which are crucial for the success of vaccination programmes. METHODS: As part of the NAVIDAD multicentre study, we examined vaccination confidence and complacency among a sample of 1820 pregnant women from 14 Italian cities. The questionnaire assessed the interviewee's knowledge, beliefs and misconceptions, as well as their socioeconomic status, information sources about vaccines and confidence in the Italian National Healthcare Service. RESULTS: Only 9% of women completely believed to the efficacy, necessity and safety of vaccinations. Almost 20% of them had misconceptions on most of the themes. There was a significant difference in the level of knowledge considering educational level: women with a high educational level have less probability of obtaining a low knowledge score (odds ratio (OR) 0.43 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-0.54]). The level of knowledge was also influenced by the sources of information: women who received information from their general practitioner (GP) and from institutional websites had a significantly lower chance of having misconceptions (OR 0.74 [95% CI 0.58-0.96]; OR 0.59 [95% CI 0.46-0.74]). Finally, the results underlined the influence of trust in healthcare professional information on the likelihood of having misconceptions (OR 0.49 [95% CI 0.27-0.89]). CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest the efficacy of GPs and institutional websites as a source of information to contrast misconceptions and underline the importance of confidence in the healthcare system to increase complacency and confidence in vaccines.