ABSTRACT
Since early 2020, the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, physicians have continued to report adverse events associated with care. Patients also continued to participate in the hospital satisfaction surveys. To date, no study in France has measured the impact of the pandemic on adverse events and patient satisfaction. We looked at the characteristics of these adverse events in relation to the pandemic and put patients' feelings into perspective. A qualitative and observational retrospective study of the REX and MCO48 databases was carried out. The quantitative study of the REX database was supplemented by a qualitative analysis of the declarations. The adverse events more often affects middle-aged men aged 60 years, while deaths occur in older patients with more complex pathologies and more urgent management. The nature of these events is different depending on the reporting period: Those reported in the first wave are more urgent, occur less frequently in the operating room than in the emergency room, and are considered less preventable than those reported in the second wave. The latter are more similar to the events that usually occur. The implementation of effective barriers, particularly within the teams, has made it possible to reduce the impact of the second wave on the occurrence of these events, the role of communication seems essential. The overall patient satisfaction score as well as those for medical and paramedical care has increased, which may reflect patient solidarity with caregivers. The attitude of active resilience on the part of all actors has been a major element in risk management during this crisis and it is essential to capitalize on these collaborative processes for the future.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Communication , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Patient Satisfaction , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Recently, treatment algorithms were developed in France additionally to ECCO recommendations that should be used as reference for ulcerative colitis (UC) management. Nevertheless, their implementation in clinical practice remains challenging. AIMS: To evaluate the prevalence of the use of these UC management algorithms in 127 patients followed by private gastroenterologists. METHODS: Charts of all UC patients seen during the year 2015 (n=127) by 10 gastroenterologists were reviewed. The gastroenterologist's management was then compared to the corresponding algorithm situation and, in case of disagreement, analysed by an expert committee. RESULTS: 94.5% of patients corresponded to a clinical situation described in algorithms. Gastroenterologist's management was adequate to the corresponding algorithm situation in 74.2% of cases. Among the 31 cases of disagreement, the gastroenterologist's decision differed from the algorithm position in 21 cases, and in 76.2% of cases the expert committee would have made the same decision. In the remaining 10 cases, the decision differed from the corresponding algorithm for reasons independent from the gastroenterologist (patient's choice etc.). CONCLUSIONS: French national algorithms for UC management allowed coverage of 95% of clinical cases in real world. In three quarters of cases, these algorithms were strictly followed by private gastroenterologists. Dissemination of these algorithms could optimize and strengthen the practitioner's choice.
