Adding short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy (STPP) to antidepressants increases treatment efficacy, but it is unclear which patients benefit specifically. This study examined efficacy moderators of combined treatment (STPP + antidepressants) v. antidepressants for adults with depression.

For this systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017056029), we searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase.com, and the Cochrane Library from inception to 1 January 2022. We included randomized clinical trials comparing combined treatment (antidepressants + individual outpatient STPP) v. antidepressants in the acute-phase treatment of depression in adults. Individual participant data were requested and analyzed combinedly using mixed-effects models (adding Cochrane risk of bias items as covariates) and an exploratory machine learning technique. The primary outcome was post-treatment depression symptom level.

Data were obtained for all seven trials identified (100%, n = 482, combined: n = 238, antidepressants: n = 244). Adding STPP to antidepressants was more efficacious for patients with high rather than low baseline depression levels [B = −0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.61 to −0.37, p < 0.0001] and for patients with a depressive episode duration of >2 years rather than <1 year (B = −0.68, 95% CI −1.31 to −0.05, p = 0.03) and than 1–2 years (B = −0.86, 95% CI −1.66 to −0.06, p = 0.04). Heterogeneity was low. Effects were replicated in analyses controlling for risk of bias.

To our knowledge, this is the first study that examines moderators across trials assessing the addition of STPP to antidepressants. These findings need validation but suggest that depression severity and episode duration are factors to consider when adding STPP to antidepressants and might contribute to personalizing treatment selection for depression.

There are few studies on how professional caregivers apply the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) in nursing home care for people with dementia. Further, despite critiques in the United Kingdom, the LCP continues to be used in the Netherlands, while, to the best of our knowledge, no studies have been conducted since its implementation. The purpose of the present study was to analyze professional caregivers' experiences with the LCP in this context.

This article draws on an ethnographic study. Data collection was based on 4 months of ethnographic fieldwork in 2015 in 11 psychogeriatric units of a nursing home in a rural area of the Netherlands. Data collection included participant observation and 25 semistructured audiotaped interviews with specialist elderly care physicians, nursing staff, and a nurse practitioner.

We found that professional caregivers appreciate the LCP as a communication tool and as a reminder of care goals. However, the document was deemed too complicated and to cause duplication of work. It was also reported that the LCP did not cover the complexity of care needs that emerge in practice. Actual care needs were prioritized over the LCP, which calls its contribution into question.

Overall, the LCP does not match the context of dementia care in the nursing home. While it could be argued that the LCP does not intend to replace good care, its benefits as a reminder and a communication tool need continued consideration in relation to the amount of work it requires as a bureaucratic obligation.

Estimating the risk of a complicated course of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) might help doctors guide treatment. We aimed to validate 3 published prediction models: Hensgens (2014), Na (2015), and Welfare (2011).

The validation cohort comprised 148 patients diagnosed with CDI between May 2013 and March 2014. During this period, 70 endemic cases of CDI occurred as well as 78 cases of CDI related to an outbreak of C. difficile ribotype 027. Model calibration and discrimination were assessed for the 3 prediction rules.

A complicated course (ie, death, colectomy, or ICU admission due to CDI) was observed in 31 patients (21%), and 23 patients (16%) died within 30 days of CDI diagnosis. The performance of all 3 prediction models was poor when applied to the total validation cohort with an estimated area under the curve (AUC) of 0.68 for the Hensgens model, 0.54 for the Na model, and 0.61 for the Welfare model. For those patients diagnosed with CDI due to non-outbreak strains, the prediction model developed by Hensgens performed the best, with an AUC of 0.78.

All 3 prediction models performed poorly when using our total cohort, which included CDI cases from an outbreak as well as endemic cases. The prediction model of Hensgens performed relatively well for patients diagnosed with CDI due to non-outbreak strains, and this model may be useful in endemic settings.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:897–905