Search

Introduction: Adverse events (AEs) are a leading cause of patient morbidity and mortality, greatly impacting healthcare providers' well-being (second victim (SV) phenomenon). Since it is not accurately captured by existing psychometric instruments, we developed a clinimetric instrument for assessing SVs' emotional distress before and after an AE. Methods: Content validity and clinical utility of the WITHSTAND-PSY Questionnaire (WS-PSY-Q) were examined using cognitive interviews. Rasch analysis (n = 284) was applied for clinimetric assessment (i.e., construct, concurrent, and clinical validity, internal consistency), considering two crucial psychological facets of the SV phenomenon (1st: emotional impact of the AE, 2nd: current emotional state). Results: The Rasch partial credit model was used. The 1st facet demonstrated overall acceptable clinimetric properties with the subscale anxiety meeting clinimetric threshold values (e.g., all items with ordered thresholds, Loevinger's coefficient h ≥ 0.40; Person Separation Reliability Index (PSI) = 0.7). The 2nd facet showed overall better clinimetric properties for both subscales (e.g., h ≥ 0.40, PSI = 0.82 and 0.79, respectively; receiver operating characteristic area of 0.80 and 0.86, respectively). For both datasets, item fit statistics, except those for item 19, were within the critical range (z-score < ±2.5), and meaningful differential functioning analysis was observed for only 4 (out of 24) items. Local dependency was not observed, except for two item couples in the depression subscales. Conclusions: The WS-PSY-Q is the first clinimetric tool assessing SVs' emotional distress. It should be regarded as part of the armamentarium used by clinicians to assess in-depth healthcare providers' psychological reactions in the aftermath of an AE to mitigate burnout and allostatic overload. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

More than two years have passed since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, it is now well established from a variety of studies focusing on the psychiatric and psychological impact of COVID-19 that especially severe infections and long-standing disease can cause emotional distress for patients, family members, and healthcare providers [[19]]. Indeed, already in the early phases of the pandemic, studies showed that COVID-19 patients experience somatic symptoms, anxiety, depression, and sleeping problems [[21]]. 10.4329/wjr.v13.i6.157 10 Politi L.S., Salsano E., Grimaldi M. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Alteration of the Brain in a Patient with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and Anosmia. [Extracted from the article]

Introduction: Although there is increased awareness about healthcare workers' (HCWs') stress and burnout after the COVID-19 pandemic, support interventions should be tailored according to the needs of HCWs. Given the unique challenges rural HCWs face, we sought to systematically identify the types of interventions specifically designed and utilized to support the well-being of HCWs practicing in rural settings. Method: We conducted a comprehensive search of the existing literature through electronic databases to identify quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies describing supportive interventions for rural HCWs with well-being-related outcomes between January 1, 2023 and March 31, 2023. We used the Effective Public Health Practice Project, Mixed Methods Assessment Tool, and Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist to evaluate the study quality. Findings: Out of 1,583 identified records, 25 studies were included in the analysis. The studies described a wide range of supportive interventions and outcomes. The overall quality of the studies was weak to moderate. None of the studies were randomized and only six included controls. Included interventions were generally well- accepted. Quantitative and qualitative themes identified shared decision making, effective supervision, and proactive cultural change as promising interventions that warrant further exploration. Financial interventions alone were not effective. Most of the studies were either unfunded or were funded internally by the institutions. Conclusions: There is limited research in support interventions for rural HCWs. Larger, well-designed studies are needed to explore promising interventions to promote well-being of rural healthcare workforce. Public Significance Statement: This study highlights the needs for more supportive services to the healthcare workers in rural areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients' first impressions obtained during early contacts with doctors represent the basis for relationship building processes. Aim of this study was to verify how patients' first impression of doctors' communication approach influences patients' global assessment of doctors' performance. This cross-sectional study was part of a larger, multicenter observational study aiming to assess lay-people's preferences regarding patient–doctor communication. All participants (N = 136) were equally distributed over two selected Italian and Dutch recruitment centers as well as for gender and age. In each center, panels of 6–9 persons each watched the same set of eight videotaped Objective Structured Clinical Examination consultations. Participants performed different tasks as to pick up salient communication elements while watching the videos and to rate doctors' global communicative performances on a 10-point Likert scale. We performed a mediation analysis to assess direct and indirect effects of participants' first impression on participants' global assessment. Among the 439 collected first impressions, 284(65%) were positive. When the first impression was positive, the mean value of the global assessment of doctors' performance was significantly higher (M = 7.4, SD = 1.5) than when the first impression was negative (M = 6.0, SD = 1.6); t(437) = 9.0 p <.001. According to the mediation analysis, this difference was due to a direct (c' = 0.53) and an indirect effect (ab = 0.86) deriving from the total effect of first impressions on the global assessment of doctors' performances (c = 1.39). In conclusion, the first impression has a strong impact on positive and negative judgments on doctors' communication approach and may facilitate or inhibit all further interactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]