Cardiac Rehabilitation Using the Family-Centered Empowerment Model is Effective in Improving Long-term Mortality in Patients with Myocardial Infarction: A 10-year Follow-Up Randomized Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) play a critical role in reducing the risk of future cardiovascular events and enhancing the quality of life for individuals who have survived a heart attack. AIM: To assess the mortality rates and stability of the effects in myocardial infarction (MI) survivors after implementing a Family-Centered Empowerment Model (FCEM)-focused hybrid cardiac rehabilitation program. METHODS: This double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial, conducted at Shariati Hospital, an academic teaching hospital in Tehran, Iran (2012-2023), involved 70 MI patients and their families. Participants were randomly assigned to an FCEM intervention group or standard CR control group. The intervention commenced after the MI patient's safe discharge from the CCU and continued for the entire 10-year follow-up period. Various questionnaires were utilized to collect data on mortality rates and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). RESULTS: The 10-year follow-up period revealed lower mortality rates in the intervention group (5.7%, 11.4%, and 17.1% at 5, 7, and 10 years, respectively) compared to the control group (20%, 37.1%, and 48.9%). After adjusting for age, gender, and BMI, the control group had a four times higher mortality risk (HR: 4.346, 95% CI 1.671-7.307, P = 0.003). The FCEM-focused program demonstrated a significant and sustained positive impact on participants' quality of life for 48 months, with greater improvement compared to the control group. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the effectiveness of FCEM-based hybrid CR programs in enhancing long-term patient outcomes and reducing mortality rates among MI survivors. Further research is needed to explore the potential benefits in larger samples and diverse populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study (Identifier: NCT02402582) was registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov on 03/30/2015.

Extracorporeal blood purification with Oxiris® filter in critically ill patients with COVID-19 requiring continuous renal replacement therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Severe COVID-19 is associated with a dysregulated immune response that usually leads to cytokine release syndrome. This study aimed to compare the use of extracorporeal blood purification therapy (Oxiris®) versus standard continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) in critically-ill patients with severe COVID-19. METHODS: This was a national, multicenter, retrospective study of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) between March and October 2020 who required CRRT. Patients were categorized into two groups: Oxiris® CRRT and standard CRRT. The primary outcome was the number of patients alive and ventilator-free at 30-days post-CRRT treatment. Key secondary endpoints included change in inflammatory markers, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores, and PaO2/FiO2 ratio at 24- and 72-h post Oxiris® initiation. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients received Oxiris® CRRT and 23 patients received standard CRRT. The primary outcome was 31.4% in the Oxiris® group versus 4.3% in the standard CRRT group (adjusted odds ratio 5.97, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-55.6; p = 0.117). In the Oxiris® group, interleukin-6 (IL-6) concentrations significantly decreased at 24 and 72-h (p = 0.033) and PaO2/FiO2 ratio significantly increased at 24 and 72 h after Oxiris® initiation (p = 0.001). There was no significant change in SOFA scores at 24- and 72-h after Oxiris® initiation. CONCLUSION: The number of patients alive and ventilator-free at 30-days was higher in the Oxiris® group than that in the standard CRRT group; however, the difference did not reach statistical significance after adjusting for the baseline severity of illness. There was a significant reduction in IL-6 and significant improvement in PaO2/FiO2 ratio after Oxiris® CRRT initiation.

Psychosocial impact of COVID-19 pandemic: experience of healthcare workers in Qatar.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound and global impact on healthcare systems worldwide, presenting unprecedented challenges for healthcare workers (HCWs) on the front. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of anxiety and depression symptoms during the coronavirus pandemic among healthcare professionals in Qatar. Methods: A cross-sectional study where an electronic questionnaire containing demographics, and psychosocial questions were made on Google Docs and Microsoft Team, and were sent through email and WhatsApp to healthcare workers, including doctors, nurses, allied health and others working at Hamad Medical Corporation in Qatar, from June 1, 2021, to January 1st 2023. ANOVA, t-test and multiple linear regression were used to see the association between the psychological factors and sociodemographic variables using STATA version 17 software. Results: A total of 829 participants were included in this study (response rate: 55%). The average age of the participants is 36.0 ± 7.1; 65.9% were males; 2.3% were doctors and 53% were nurses, 38.7% were allied healthcare professionals and 6% were others. Psychological, social effects, and workplace were shown to significantly related to their marital status, career, and hospital setting (p < 0.01 for each). Similar to this, dealing with COVID-19 patients and their education level with the length of time working at the designated facility were all connected with the health professional safety score (p < 0.05). Conclusion: During the COVID-19 epidemic, healthcare workers in Qatar experienced a high incidence of negative psychosocial symptoms. To alleviate these outcomes, it would be useful to implement screening procedures for such symptoms and to devise preventive measures accordingly.

Reflective learning conversations model for simulation debriefing: a co-design process and development innovation.

BACKGROUND: Health practitioners must be equipped with effective clinical reasoning skills to make appropriate, safe clinical decisions and avoid practice errors. Under-developed clinical reasoning skills have the potential to threaten patient safety and delay care or treatment, particularly in critical and acute care settings. Simulation-based education which incorporates post-simulation reflective learning conversations as a debriefing method is used to develop clinical reasoning skills while patient safety is maintained. However, due to the multidimensional nature of clinical reasoning, the potential risk of cognitive overload, and the varying use of analytic (hypothetical-deductive) and non-analytic (intuitive) clinical reasoning processes amongst senior and junior simulation participants, it is important to consider experience, competence, flow and amount of information, and case complexity related factors to optimize clinical reasoning while attending group- based post-simulation reflective learning conversations as a debriefing method. We aim to describe the development of a post-simulation reflective learning conversations model in which a number of contributing factors to achieve clinical reasoning optimization were addressed. METHODS: A Co-design working group (N = 18) of doctors, nurses, researchers, educators, and patients' representatives collaboratively worked through consecutive workshops to co-design a post-simulation reflective learning conversations model to be used for simulation debriefing. The co-design working group established the model through a theoretical and conceptual-driven process and multiphasic expert reviews. Concurrent integration of appreciative inquiry, plus/delta, and Bloom's Taxonomy methods were considered to optimize simulation participants' clinical reasoning while attending simulation activities. The face and content validity of the model were established using the Content Validity Index CVI and Content Validity Ratio CVR methods. RESULTS: A Post-simulation reflective learning conversations model was developed and piloted. The model was supported with worked examples and scripted guidance. The face and content validity of the model were evaluated and confirmed. CONCLUSIONS: The newly co-designed model was established in consideration to different simulation participants' seniority and competence, flow and amount of information, and simulation case complexity. These factors were considered to optimize clinical reasoning while attending group-based simulation activities.