To characterize experiences, beliefs, and perceptions of risk related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), infection prevention practices, and COVID-19 vaccination among healthcare personnel (HCP) at nonacute care facilities.

Anonymous survey.

Three non–acute-care facilities in St. Louis, Missouri.

In total, 156 HCP responded to the survey, for a 25.6% participation rate). Among them, 32% had direct patient-care roles.

Anonymous surveys were distributed between April-May 2021. Data were collected on demographics, work experience, COVID-19 exposure, knowledge, and beliefs about infection prevention, personal protective equipment (PPE) use, COVID-19 vaccination, and the impact of COVID-19.

Nearly all respondents reported adequate knowledge of how to protect oneself from COVID-19 at work (97%) and had access to adequate PPE supplies (95%). Many HCP reported that wearing a mask or face shield made communication difficult (59%), that they had taken on additional responsibilities due to staff shortages (56%), and that their job became more stressful because of COVID-19 (53%). Moreover, 28% had considered quitting their job. Most respondents (78%) had received at least 1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Common reasons for vaccination were a desire to protect family and friends (84%) and a desire to stop the spread of COVID-19 (82%). Potential side effects and/or inadequate vaccine testing were cited as the most common concerns by unvaccinated HCP.

A significant proportion of HCP reported increased stress and responsibilities at work due to COVID-19. The majority were vaccinated. Improving workplace policies related to mental health resources and sick leave, maintaining access to PPE, and ensuring clear communication of PPE requirements may improve workplace stress and burnout.

Background and Aim: Psychodynamic psychiatry training seminars are a blended supervision and experiential style approach to training health care professionals in reflective practice and formulation. They apply psychodynamic theory through case formulations, seminars, and Balint groups so that health care staff can improve their communication style, formulation skills and enhance their appreciation for patients with complex mental health problems. Our aim is to evaluate the provision of our psychodynamic psychiatry training sessions for doctors in psychiatry, gastroenterology, and emergency medicine, and to evaluate the perceived benefits of attending in terms of personal and professional development.

Methods: The evaluation used a standardized mixed-methods approach, with the sample consisting of psychiatry core trainees (n = 9), gastroenterology higher trainees (n = 4), and emergency medicine doctors (n = 10). The evaluation period was between October 2021 and January 2022. Data were gathered via a survey tool, adapted from the literature using Likert scales and free text questions to identify barriers and facilitators to the sessions.

Results: All participants (n = 23) scored the group highly across the board in terms of acceptability, clinical impact, and fidelity measures. All participants reported that they have a better appreciation of group dynamics, the impact of the doctor's humanity and personality on their clinical work, and the symbolic meaning of the patient's symptoms. Notably, approximately 60% reported that the sessions were relevant to their ongoing training needs and that 95% of participants felt the sessions were a safe place to express and process anxieties and frustrations about their work. All participants either agreed or strongly agreed the group had changed the way they think and practice, and that they felt able to consider their clinical encounters in a new light.

Conclusion: This evaluation reports early findings on psychodynamic psychiatry teaching for different medical groups. Overall, the participants felt the sessions were relevant to their training and improved their personal and professional development. Key benefits of the group were highlighted and included increased insight into the emotional and symbolic aspects of the patient's symptoms and clinical issues, team working through cohesion, and the humanity of the doctor in the clinical relationship with the patient. This suggests that the sessions provide a much-needed space to process and reflect on the often-intense demands of clinical work, individually and as a team. The main theme within barriers to the group processes was external in terms of other clinical demands requiring prioritization.

Patients on dialysis are at high risk for severe COVID-19 and associated morbidity and mortality. We examined the humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 in a maintenance dialysis population.

Single-center cohort study.

Adult maintenance dialysis patients at 3 outpatient dialysis units of a large academic center.

Participants were vaccinated with 2 doses of BNT162b2, 3 weeks apart. We assessed anti–SARS-CoV-2 spike antibodies (anti-S) ∼4–7 weeks after the second dose and evaluated risk factors associated with insufficient response. Definitions of antibody response are as follows: nonresponse (anti-S level, <50 AU/mL), low response (anti-S level, 50–839 AU/mL), and sufficient response (anti-S level, ≥840 AU/mL).

Among the 173 participants who received 2 vaccine doses, the median age was 60 years (range, 28–88), 53.2% were men, 85% were of Black race, 86% were on in-center hemodialysis and 14% were on peritoneal dialysis. Also, 7 participants (4%) had no response, 27 (15.6%) had a low response, and 139 (80.3%) had a sufficient antibody response. In multivariable analysis, factors significantly associated with insufficient antibody response included end-stage renal disease comorbidity index score ≥5 and absence of prior hepatitis B vaccination response.

Although most of our study participants seroconverted after 2 doses of BNT162b2, 20% of our cohort did not achieve sufficient humoral response. Our findings demonstrate the urgent need for a more effective vaccine strategy in this high-risk patient population and highlight the importance of ongoing preventative measures until protective immunity is achieved.

Young people with social disability and severe and complex mental health problems have poor outcomes, frequently struggling with treatment access and engagement. Outcomes may be improved by enhancing care and providing targeted psychological or psychosocial intervention.

We aimed to test the hypothesis that adding social recovery therapy (SRT) to enhanced standard care (ESC) would improve social recovery compared with ESC alone.

A pragmatic, assessor-masked, randomised controlled trial (PRODIGY: ISRCTN47998710) was conducted in three UK centres. Participants (n = 270) were aged 16–25 years, with persistent social disability, defined as under 30 hours of structured activity per week, social impairment for at least 6 months and severe and complex mental health problems. Participants were randomised to ESC alone or SRT plus ESC. SRT was an individual psychosocial therapy delivered over 9 months. The primary outcome was time spent in structured activity 15 months post-randomisation.

We randomised 132 participants to SRT plus ESC and 138 to ESC alone. Mean weekly hours in structured activity at 15 months increased by 11.1 h for SRT plus ESC (mean 22.4, s.d. = 21.4) and 16.6 h for ESC alone (mean 27.7, s.d. = 26.5). There was no significant difference between arms; treatment effect was −4.44 (95% CI −10.19 to 1.31, P = 0.13). Missingness was consistently greater in the ESC alone arm.

We found no evidence for the superiority of SRT as an adjunct to ESC. Participants in both arms made large, clinically significant improvements on all outcomes. When providing comprehensive evidence-based standard care, there are no additional gains by providing specialised SRT. Optimising standard care to ensure targeted delivery of existing interventions may further improve outcomes.

Prophylactic antibiotics are commonly prescribed at discharge for mastectomy, despite guidelines recommending against this practice. We investigated factors associated with postdischarge prophylactic antibiotic use after mastectomy with and without immediate reconstruction and the impact on surgical-site infection (SSI).

We studied a cohort of women aged 18–64 years undergoing mastectomy between January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2015, using the MarketScan commercial database. Patients with nonsurgical perioperative infections were excluded. Postdischarge oral antibiotics were identified from outpatient drug claims. SSI was defined using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis codes. Generalized linear models were used to determine factors associated with postdischarge prophylactic antibiotic use and SSI.

The cohort included 38,793 procedures; 24,818 (64%) with immediate reconstruction. Prophylactic antibiotics were prescribed after discharge after 2,688 mastectomy-only procedures (19.2%) and 17,807 mastectomies with immediate reconstruction (71.8%). The 90-day incidence of SSI was 3.5% after mastectomy only and 8.8% after mastectomy with immediate reconstruction. Antibiotics with anti–methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) activity were associated with decreased SSI risk after mastectomy only (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55–0.99) and mastectomy with immediate reconstruction (aRR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73–0.88), respectively. The numbers needed to treat to prevent 1 additional SSI were 107 and 48, respectively.

Postdischarge prophylactic antibiotics were common after mastectomy. Anti-MSSA antibiotics were associated with decreased risk of SSI for patients who had mastectomy only and those who had mastectomy with immediate reconstruction. The high numbers needed to treat suggest that potential benefits of postdischarge antibiotics should be weighed against potential harms associated with antibiotic overuse.