PLUS-IS-LESS project: Procalcitonin and Lung UltraSonography-based antibiotherapy in patients with Lower rESpiratory tract infection in Swiss Emergency Departments: study protocol for a pragmatic stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) are among the most frequent infections and a significant contributor to inappropriate antibiotic prescription. Currently, no single diagnostic tool can reliably identify bacterial pneumonia. We thus evaluate a multimodal approach based on a clinical score, lung ultrasound (LUS), and the inflammatory biomarker, procalcitonin (PCT) to guide prescription of antibiotics. LUS outperforms chest X-ray in the identification of pneumonia, while PCT is known to be elevated in bacterial and/or severe infections. We propose a trial to test their synergistic potential in reducing antibiotic prescription while preserving patient safety in emergency departments (ED). METHODS: The PLUS-IS-LESS study is a pragmatic, stepped-wedge cluster-randomized, clinical trial conducted in 10 Swiss EDs. It assesses the PLUS algorithm, which combines a clinical prediction score, LUS, PCT, and a clinical severity score to guide antibiotics among adults with LRTIs, compared with usual care. The co-primary endpoints are the proportion of patients prescribed antibiotics and the proportion of patients with clinical failure by day 28. Secondary endpoints include measurement of change in quality of life, length of hospital stay, antibiotic-related side effects, barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the algorithm, cost-effectiveness of the intervention, and identification of patterns of pneumonia in LUS using machine learning. DISCUSSION: The PLUS algorithm aims to optimize prescription of antibiotics through improved diagnostic performance and maximization of physician adherence, while ensuring safety. It is based on previously validated tests and does therefore not expose participants to unforeseeable risks. Cluster randomization prevents cross-contamination between study groups, as physicians are not exposed to the intervention during or before the control period. The stepped-wedge implementation of the intervention allows effect calculation from both between- and within-cluster comparisons, which enhances statistical power and allows smaller sample size than a parallel cluster design. Moreover, it enables the training of all centers for the intervention, simplifying implementation if the results prove successful. The PLUS algorithm has the potential to improve the identification of LRTIs that would benefit from antibiotics. When scaled, the expected reduction in the proportion of antibiotics prescribed has the potential to not only decrease side effects and costs but also mitigate antibiotic resistance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered on July 19, 2022, on the ClinicalTrials.gov registry using reference number: NCT05463406. TRIAL STATUS: Recruitment started on December 5, 2022, and will be completed on November 3, 2024. Current protocol version is version 3.0, dated April 3, 2023.

How is physicians' implicit prejudice against the obese and mentally ill moderated by specialty and experience?

BACKGROUND: Implicit prejudice can lead to disparities in treatment. The effects of specialty and experience on implicit obesity and mental illness prejudice had not been explored. The main objective was to examine how specializing in psychiatry/general medicine and years of experience moderated implicit obesity and mental illness prejudice among Swiss physicians. Secondary outcomes included examining the malleability of implicit bias via two video interventions and a condition of cognitive load, correlations of implicit bias with responses to a clinical vignette, and correlations with explicit prejudice. METHODS: In stage 1, participants completed an online questionnaire including a clinical vignette. In stage 2, implicit prejudice pre- and post- intervention was tested using a 4 × 4 between-subject design including a control group. In stage 3, explicit prejudice was tested with feeling thermometers and participants were debriefed. Participants were 133 psychiatrists and internists working in Geneva, hospital-based and private practice. Implicit prejudice was assessed using a Weight IAT (Implicit Association Test) and a Mental Illness IAT. Explicit feelings towards the obese and the mentally ill were measured using Feeling Thermometers. A clinical vignette assessed the level of concern felt for a fictional patient under four conditions: control, obese, depression, obese and depression. Linear regression was conducted to test for association of gender, experience, and specialty with responses to vignettes, pre-intervention IATs and explicit attitudes, and to test for association of interventions (or control) with post-intervention IATs and explicit attitudes. Reported effect sizes were computed using Cohen's d. Two-tailed p < 0.05 was selected as the significance threshold. RESULTS: Compared to internists, psychiatrists showed significantly less implicit bias against mentally vs. physically ill people than internists and warmer explicit feelings towards the mentally ill. More experienced physicians displayed warmer explicit feelings towards the mentally ill and a greater level of concern for the fictional patients in the vignette than the less experienced, except when the patient was described as obese. CONCLUSIONS: Specialty moderates both implicit and explicit mental illness prejudice. Experience moderates explicit mental illness bias and concern for patients. The effect of specialty on implicit prejudice seems to be based principally on self-selection.

Visual aids in ambulatory clinical practice: Experiences, perceptions and needs of patients and healthcare professionals.

This study aims to explore how visual aids (VA) are used in ambulatory medical practice. Our research group (two doctors, one graphic designer and one sociologist) have led a qualitative study based on Focus Groups. A semi-structured guide and examples of VA were used to stimulate discussions. Participants were healthcare professionals (HP) working in ambulatory practice in Geneva and French-speaking outpatients. After inductive thematic analysis, the coding process was analyzed and modified to eventually reach consensus. Six focus groups gathered twenty-one HP and fifteen patients. Our study underlines the variety of purposes of use of VA and the different contexts of use allowing the distinction between "stand-alone" VA used out of consultation by patients alone and "interactive" VA used during a consultation enriched by the interaction between HP and patients. HP described that VA can take the form of useful tools for education and communication during consultation. They have questioned the quality of available VA and complained about restricted access to them. Patients expressed concern about the impact of VA on the interaction with HP. Participants agreed on the beneficial role of VA to supplement verbal explanation and text. Our study emphasizes the need to classify available VA, guarantee their quality, facilitate their access and deliver pertinent instructions for use.

Vulnerability identified in clinical practice: a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although it is the moral duty of physicians to protect vulnerable patients, there are no data on how vulnerability is perceived in clinical practice. This study explores how physicians classify someone as "vulnerable". METHOD: Thirty-three physicians were initially questioned about resource allocation problems in their work. The results of these interviews were examined with qualitative study software to identify characteristics associated with vulnerability in patients. Data were conceptualized, classified and cross-linked to highlight the major determinants of vulnerability. The findings revealed the principal factors that make patients vulnerable in clinical practice, according to our definition of vulnerability: the likelihood of having one's interests unjustly considered. RESULTS: Vulnerability can arise as a result of a mismatch between the characteristics of patients and physicians, the healthcare system, the treatment, or the communication between physicians and patients. Vulnerability appears as a gap between a patient's needs and the means intended to meet them. Vulnerability can further be the result of doing too little or too much for patients. This result suggests that structures provided by healthcare systems are not as differentiated as they should be to cover all situations. Our initial definition of vulnerability was illustrated and supported by our results, showing that it encompasses all factors involved, not solely personal characteristics, indicating the need for a more pragmatic approach for use in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Vulnerability is not due to a single factor but appears under certain circumstances when there is a discrepancy between a patient's interests and the care provided, despite existing compensation systems.

Swiss-CHAT: Citizens Discuss Priorities for Swiss Health Insurance Coverage.

BACKGROUND: As universal health coverage becomes the norm in many countries, it is important to determine public priorities regarding benefits to include in health insurance coverage. We report results of participation in a decision exercise among residents of Switzerland, a high-income country with a long history of universal health insurance and deliberative democracy. METHODS: We adapted the Choosing Healthplans All Together (CHAT) tool, an exercise developed to transform complex healthcare allocation decisions into easily understandable choices, for use in Switzerland. We conducted CHAT exercises in twelve Swiss cities with recruitment from a range of socio-economic backgrounds, taking into account differences in language and culture. RESULTS: Compared to existing coverage, a majority of 175 participants accepted greater general practice gatekeeping (94%), exclusion of invasive life-sustaining measures in dying patients (80%), longer waiting times for non-urgent episodic care (78%), greater adherence to cost-effectiveness guidelines in chronic care (66%), and lower premium subsidies (51%). Most initially chose greater coverage for dental care (59%), quality of life (57%), and long-term care (90%). During group deliberations, participants increased coverage for out-of-pocket costs (58%) and mental health to current levels (41%) and beyond current levels for rehabilitation (50%), and decreased coverage for quality of life to current levels (74%). Following group deliberation, they tended to change their views back to below current coverage for help with out-of-pocket costs, and back to current levels for rehabilitation. Most participants accepted the plan as appropriate and fair. A significant number would have added nothing. CONCLUSION: Swiss participants who have engaged in a priority setting exercise accept complex resource allocation trade-offs in healthcare coverage. Moreover, in the context of a well-funded healthcare system with universal coverage centered on individual choice, at least some of our participants believed a fully sufficient threshold of health insurance coverage was achieved.

Solidarity and cost management: Swiss citizens' reasons for priorities regarding health insurance coverage.

CONTEXT: Approaches to priority-setting for scarce resources have shifted to public deliberation as trade-offs become more difficult. We report results of a qualitative analysis of public deliberation in Switzerland, a country with high health-care costs, an individual health insurance mandate and a strong tradition of direct democracy with frequent votes related to health care. METHODS: We adapted the Choosing Healthplans All Together (CHAT) tool, an exercise developed to transform complex health-care allocation decisions into easily understandable choices, for use in Switzerland. We conducted focus groups in twelve Swiss cities, recruiting from a range of socio-economic backgrounds in the three language regions. FINDINGS: Participants developed strategic arguments based on the importance of basic coverage for all, and of cost-benefit evaluation. They also expressed arguments relying on a principle of solidarity, in particular the importance of protection for vulnerable groups, and on the importance of medical care. They struggled with the place of personal responsibility in coverage decisions. In commenting on the exercise, participants found the degree of consensus despite differing opinions surprising and valuable. CONCLUSION: The Swiss population is particularly attentive to the costs of health care and means of reducing these costs. Swiss citizens are capable of making trade-offs and setting priorities for complex health issues.

Unresolved issues in risk communication research: the case of the H1N1 pandemic (2009-2011).

The 2009 H1N1 pandemic had considerable impact on risk perceptions, vaccination campaigns, and global health governance. In this context, risk communication issues have been probably the most puzzling and the least understood in retrospect. This article reviews the current knowledge on the following issues: risk and pandemic perceptions; vaccination perceptions and practices; rumors and rumor propagation; and health risk communication. It also highlights the research gaps in these areas that remain to be further explored in the future.