Mental distress and well-being in geriatric professionals: The role of job satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: As limited evidence is available on health professionals' experience during the post-pandemic period, the interplay between job satisfaction components, mental distress and well-being was investigated among workers of an Italian geriatric institution. METHODS: In Spring 2022, 205 participants (females =75.6%), primarily healthcare assistants (36.6%), nurses (16.6%), and rehabilitation professionals (14.1%), completed the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF), and the Job Satisfaction Questionnaire. Data analyses comprised Multiple Regressions, Relative Weight Analyses, and ANOVA. FINDINGS: Satisfaction with working conditions and leadership exhibited negative associations with distress, while satisfaction with patients, colleagues, results, and leadership were positively correlated with well-being. Participants with high well-being levels scored significantly lower across mental distress dimensions than participants reporting poor well-being levels. CONCLUSIONS: Results showed that specific job satisfaction components relate differently to distress and well-being, suggesting the need for implementing organizational resources, psychological support, and interprofessional collaboration in healthcare services.

Implementation of a centralized discharge planning office during the COVID-19 pandemic: translating the experience from the emergency to routine clinical practice.

Background and aim During the COVID-19 emergency, the lombardy region (northern Italy) implemented a regional Centralized Discharge Planning Office (CDPO) to promptly manage the discharge requests, rapidly match the needs of discharge hospitals with the availability of admission facilities and ensure the management of the entire discharge process. To improve the discharge process in routine clinical practice, maintaining the role of the CDPO could be of great interest. This paper describes the experience of the CDPO during the COVID-19 pandemic and discusses the possibility to translate this operational model to routine clinical practice. METHODS: The PRIAMO web portal was developed to manage discharge requests with centralized and standardized procedures. The activity on PRIAMO consisted of three stages: discharge request, sorting process, and discharge follow-up phase. To evaluate the activity of the CDPO, these indicators were considered: average time (hours) between patient discharge and transfer acceptance; average time (hours) between patient discharge and effective admission to the new facility; percentage of transfers whose destination was found directly by the CDPO; percentage of reallocations beyond 24 hours; mean distance between discharge and admission facilities. RESULTS: Process indicator evaluation showed a great reduction in the time between the discharge and the admission to post-acute care facilities. Transfers whose destination was found directly by the CDPO progressively increased. Reallocations beyond 24 hours by the CDPO decreased, suggesting an improvement in the quality of the operations. CONCLUSIONS: Centralized discharge planning has enabled timely and efficient management of discharge requests even in the moment of a surge, saving time and costs for acute care hospitals.

Psychological distress and resilience among italian healthcare workers of geriatric services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed healthcare workers (HW) to heavy workload and psychological distress. This study was aimed to investigate distress levels among Italian physicians, nurses, rehabilitation professionals and healthcare assistants working in geriatric and long-term care services, and to explore the potential role of resilience as a protective resource. The General Health Questionnaire-12, the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, and a demographic survey were completed by 708 Italian HWs. Distress and resilience levels were compared between professionals through ANOVA; the contribution of sex, age, professional role, and resilience to distress was explored through regression analyses. Physicians reported significantly higher resilience and distress levels than rehabilitation professionals and healthcare assistants respectively. Women, HWs aged above 45, physicians, and participants reporting low resilience levels were at higher risk for distress. Findings suggest the importance of supporting HW's resilience to counterbalance the pandemic related distress.

Sero-survey on long-term care facility residents reveals increased risk of sub-optimal antibody response to BNT162b2: implications for breakthrough prevention.

BACKGROUND: The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) has been dramatic on global scale as older age and comorbidities pose an increased risk of severe disease and death. METHODS: Aim of this study was to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 Spike-specific IgG (S-IgG) antibody titers in 478 residents and 649 health care workers of a large Italian long-term care facility two months after complete vaccination with BNT162b2. Associations among resident-related factors and predictors of humoral response were investigated. RESULTS: By stratifying levels of humoral responses, we found that 62.1%, 21.6%, 12.1% and 4.2% of residents had high (>1,000 BAU/ml), medium (101-1,000), low (1-100) and null (<1 BAU/mL) S-IgG titers, respectively. Residents with documented previous COVID-19 and those with SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid-specific IgG (N-IgG) positive serology showed higher level of serological response, while significant associations were observed for cancer with suboptimal response (p = 0.005) and the administration of corticosteroid for suboptimal response (p = 0.028) and a null one (p = 0.039). According to multivariate logistic regression, predictors of an increased risk of null response were advanced age (Odd ratio, OR: 2.630; Confidence interval, CI: 1.13-6.14; p = 0.025), corticosteroid therapy (OR: 4.964; CI: 1.06-23.52; p = 0.042) and diabetes mellitus (OR:3.415; CI:1.08-10.8; p = 0.037). In contrast, previous diagnosis of COVID-19 was strongly associated with a reduced risk of null response to vaccination (OR:0.126; CI:0.02-0.23; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies in elderly individuals should be consider when deciding the need of a third dose of vaccine for prevention of reinfections in LTCFs despite the maintenance of barrier measures.

Durability of Humoral Responses after the Second Dose of mRNA BNT162b2 Vaccine in Residents of a Long Term Care Facility.

Residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) have been dramatically hit by the COVID-19 pandemic on a global scale as older age and comorbidities pose an increased risk of severe disease and death. The aim of the study was to assess the quantity and durability of specific antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 after the first cycle (two doses) of BNT162b2 vaccine. To achieve this, SARS-CoV-2 Spike-specific IgG (S-IgG) titers was evaluated in 432 residents of the largest Italian LTCF at months 2 and 6 after vaccination. By stratifying levels of humoral responses as high, medium, low and null, we did not find any difference when comparing the two time points; however, the median levels of antibodies halved overtime. As positive nucleocapsid serology was associated with a reduced risk of a suboptimal response at both time points, we conducted separate analyses accordingly. In subjects with positive serology, the median level of anti-S IgG slightly increased at the second time point, while a significant reduction was observed in patients without previous exposure to the virus. At month 6, diabetes alone was associated with an increased risk of impaired response. Our data provide additional insights into the longitudinal dynamics of the immune response to BNT162b2 vaccination in the elderly, highlighting the need for SARS-CoV-2 antibody monitoring following third-dose administration.

Effects of endurance, circuit, and relaxing training on cardiovascular risk factors in hypertensive elderly patients.

Recommendations for prevention of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) risk factors among older adults highlighted the importance of exercise-based interventions, including endurance training (ET). However, the evidence of efficacy of other interventions based on short-bouts of exercise (circuit training, CT), and the practice of breath-control and meditation (relaxing training, RT) is growing. The aim of this study was to elucidate if CT or RT are equally effective in CVD risk factors reduction compared to ET. To this purpose, in 40 elderly participants, with clinically diagnosed grade 1 hypertension, resting blood pressure, blood glucose, and cholesterol levels, peak oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]), mechanical efficiency and quality of life were evaluated before and after 12 weeks of ET, CT, and RT treatments. Resting blood pressure reduced significantly in all groups by ∼11 %. In ET, blood cholesterol levels (-18 %), [Formula: see text] (+8 %), mechanical efficiency (+9 %), and quality of life scores (+36 %) ameliorated. In CT blood glucose levels (-11 %), [Formula: see text] (+7 %) and quality of life scores (+35 %) were bettered. Conversely, in RT, the lower blood pressure went along only with an improvement in the mental component of quality of life (+42 %). ET and CT were both appropriate interventions to reduce CVDs risk factors, because blood pressure reduction was accompanied by decreases in blood glucose and cholesterol levels, increases in [Formula: see text], mechanical efficiency, and quality of life. Although RT influenced only blood pressure and quality of life, this approach would be an attractive alternative for old individuals unable or reluctant to carry out ET or CT.

Antihypertensive effect of barnidipine 10 mg or amlodipine 5 to 10 mg once daily in treatment-naive patients with essential hypertension: A 24-week, randomized, open-label, pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Dihydropyridine calcium antagonists are largely employed for the treatment of hypertension, coronary heart disease, and heart failure. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to compare the antihypertensive effect of the dihydropyridine calcium antagonists barnidipine and amlodipine. METHODS: This was a 24-week, randomized, open-label, pilot study. Consecutive treatment-naive patients with grade I or II essential hypertension (office sitting systolic blood pressure [BP] of 140-179 mm Hg and diastolic BP of 90-109 mm Hg) were enrolled. The primary end points were the effect of treatment with either barnidipine 10 mg or amlodipine 5 mg once daily on office and ambulatory BP, left ventricular mass index (LVMI), and markers of cardiac damage, serum procollagen type I C-terminal propeptide, and plasma amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentrations. Patients were assessed at enrollment, and 12 and 24 weeks. During each visit, the prevalence of adverse events (AEs) was also monitored using spontaneous reporting, patient interview, and physical examination, the relationship to study drug being determined by the investigators. Compliance with treatment was assessed at each study visit by counting returned tablets. RESULTS: Thirty eligible patients (20 men, 10 women; mean [SD] age, 47 [12] years) were included in the study; all patients completed the 24 weeks of study treatment. Twelve weeks after randomization, 6 patients in the amlodipine group had their dose doubled to 10 mg due to inadequate BP control. Mean BP reductions at study end were not significantly different between the barnidipine and amlodipine groups (office BP, -10.3/-9.4 vs -16.6/-9.1 mm Hg; ambulatory BP, 9.4/6.4 vs 8.1/5.1 mm Hg). Reductions in LVMI and markers of cardiac damage were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Significantly more patients in the amlodipine group reported drug-related AEs compared with those in the barnidipine group (9 [60%] vs 2 [13%]; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In this small sample of treatment-naive hypertensive patients, the antihypertensive effect of barnidipine 10 mg once daily was not significantly different from that of amlodipine 5 to 10 mg once daily.