Nosocomial Coronavirus Disease 2019 during 2020-2021: Role of Architecture and Ventilation.

Nosocomial coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a major airborne health threat for inpatients. Architecture and ventilation are key elements to prevent nosocomial COVID-19 (NC), but real-life data are challenging to collect. We aimed to retrospectively assess the impact of the type of ventilation and the ratio of single/double rooms on the risk of NC (acquisition of COVID-19 at least 48 h after admission). This study was conducted in a tertiary hospital composed of two main structures (one historical and one modern), which were the sites of acquisition of NC: historical (H) (natural ventilation, 53% single rooms) or modern (M) hospital (double-flow mechanical ventilation, 91% single rooms). During the study period (1 October 2020 to 31 May 2021), 1020 patients presented with COVID-19, with 150 (14.7%) of them being NC (median delay of acquisition, 12 days). As compared with non-nosocomial cases, the patients with NC were older (79 years vs. 72 years; p < 0.001) and exhibited higher mortality risk (32.7% vs. 14.1%; p < 0.001). Among the 150 NC cases, 99.3% were diagnosed in H, mainly in four medical departments. A total of 73 cases were diagnosed in single rooms versus 77 in double rooms, including 26 secondary cases. Measured air changes per hour were lower in H than in M. We hypothesized that in H, SARS-CoV-2 transmission was favored by short-range transmission within a high ratio of double rooms, but also during clusters, via far-afield transmission through virus-laden aerosols favored by low air changes per hour. A better knowledge of the mechanism of airborne risk in healthcare establishments should lead to the implementation of corrective measures when necessary. People's health is improved using not only personal but also collective protective equipment, i.e., ventilation and architecture, thereby reinforcing the need to change institutional and professional practices.

Integrating Multidisciplinary Results to Produce New Knowledge About the Physician-Patient Relationship: A Methodology Applied to the INTERMEDE Project.

The INTERMEDE Project brought together a number of research teams to study the interaction between a patient and their general practitioner, and how this can produce social inequalities in health. The ultimate objective of the project was to formalize a core of common findings by integrating qualitative and quantitative results. The methodology chosen for the integration was inspired by the Delphi participatory method. It involves several rounds of questions and feedback in writing between all members of project teams, in order to compare contradictory opinions and identify key concepts arising from the project. This interdisciplinary research has provided a more nuanced understanding of the mechanisms underlying physician-patient interaction by revealing the convergences of the various disciplinary approaches.

Do gender differences affect the doctor-patient interaction during consultations in general practice? Results from the INTERMEDE study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to ascertain whether disagreement between GPs and patients on advice given on nutrition, exercise and weight loss is related to patient-doctor gender discordance. Our hypothesis is that a patient interacting with a physician of the same gender may perceive more social proximity, notably on health care beliefs and may be more inclined to trust them. METHODS: The analysis used the Intermede project's quantitative data collected via mirrored questionnaires at the end of the consultation. Multilevel logistic regressions were carried out to explore associations between patient-doctor gender discordance and their disagreement on advice given during the consultation adjusted on patients' and physicians' characteristics. The sample consists of 585 eligible patients and 27 GPs. RESULTS: Disagreement on advice given on nutrition was observed less often for female concordant dyads: OR = 0.25 (95% CI = 0.08-0.78), and for female doctors-male patients dyads: OR = 0.24 (95% CI = 0.07-0.84), taking the male concordant dyads as reference. For advice given on exercise, disagreement was found less often for female concordant dyads OR = 0.38 (95% CI = 0.15-0.98) and an interdoctor effect was found (P < 0.05). For advice given on weight loss, the probability of disagreement was significantly increased (OR: 2.87 95% CI = 1.29-6.41) when consultations consisted of female patient and male GP. CONCLUSION: Patient-doctor gender concordance/discordance is associated with their agreement/disagreement on advice given during the consultation. Physicians need to be conscious that their own demographic characteristics and perceptions might influence the quality of prevention counseling delivered to their patients.

Is perceived social distance between the patient and the general practitioner related to their disagreement on patient's health status?

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain whether disagreement between patients and general practitioners (GP) on the patient's health status varies according to their respective perceived social distance (PSD). METHODS: The analysis used the Intermede project's quantitative data collected from 585 patients and 27 doctors via mirrored questionnaires. GPs and patients ranked their own perceived social position (PSP) in society, and their patients' and their GP respectively. PSD was calculated as the PSP's subtraction from the patients' and GPs' assessments. RESULTS: Disagreement between GPs and patients regarding the patient's health status was associated with PSD by the GP whereas it was not associated with PSD by the patient. In the multilevel analysis, disagreement whereby GPs overestimate patient's health status increased within PSD by the GP: OR:2.9 (95%CI = 1.0-8.6, p = 0.055) for low PSD, OR:3.4 (95%CI = 1.1-10.2, p < 0.05) for moderate PSD and OR:3.8 (95%CI = 1.1-13.1, p < 0.05) for high PSD (reference: no distance). CONCLUSIONS: Patients perceived with a lower social position by their GP and who consider themselves to have poor health are less likely to be identified in the primary care system. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Physicians need to be conscious that their own perception influences the quality of the interaction with their patients, potentially resulting in unequal health care trajectories.

Do general practitioners overestimate the health of their patients with lower education?

This study sought to ascertain whether disagreement between patients and physicians on the patients' health status varies according to patients' education level. INTERMEDE is a cross-sectional multicentre study. Data were collected from both patients and doctors via pre- and post consultation questionnaires at the GP's office over a two-week period in October 2007 in 3 regions of France. The sample consists of 585 eligible patients (61% women) and 27 GPs. A significant association between agreement/disagreement between GP and patient on the patient's health status and patient's education level was observed: 75% of patients with a high education level agreed with their GP compared to 50% of patients with a low level of education. Patients and GPs disagreed where patients with the lowest education level said that their health was worse relative to their doctor's evaluation 37% of the time, versus 16% and 14% for those with a medium or high education level respectively. A multilevel multivariate analysis revealed that patients with a low educational level and medium educational level respectively were at higher risk of being overestimated by GP's in respect of self-reported health even if controlling for confounders. These findings suggest that people with a lower education level who consider themselves to have poor health are less reliably identified as such in the primary care system. This could potentially result in lack of advice and treatment for these patients and ultimately the maintenance of health inequalities.

Do doctors and patients agree on cardiovascular-risk management recommendations post-consultation? The INTERMEDE study.

BACKGROUND: Understanding interactions between patients and GPs may be important for optimising communication during consultations and improving health promotion, notably in the management of cardiovascular risk factors. AIM: To explore the agreement between physicians and patients on the management of cardiovascular risk factors, and whether potential disagreement is linked to the patient's educational level. DESIGN OF STUDY: INTERMEDE is a cross-sectional study with data collection occurring at GPs' offices over a 2-week period in October 2007 in France. METHOD: Data were collected from both patients and doctors respectively via pre- and post-consultation questionnaires that were 'mirrored', meaning that GPs and patients were presented with the same questions. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 585 eligible patients (61% females) and 27 GPs. Agreement between patients and GPs was better for tangible aspects of the consultation, such as measuring blood pressure (κ = 0.84, standard deviation [SD] = 0.04), compared to abstract elements, like advising the patient on nutrition (κ = 0.36, SD = 0.04), and on exercise (κ = 0.56, SD = 0.04). Patients' age was closely related to level of education: half of those without any qualification were older than 65 years. The statistical association between education and agreement between physicians and patients disappeared after adjustment for age, but a trend remained. CONCLUSION: This study reveals misunderstandings between patients and GPs on the content of the consultation, especially for health-promotion outcomes. Taking patients' social characteristics into account, notably age and educational level, could improve mutual understanding between patients and GPs, and therefore, the quality of care.