Patients\u27 satisfaction and opinions of their experiences during admission in a tertiary care hospital in Pakistan - a cross sectional study

Background: It is often felt that developing countries need to improve their quality of healthcare provision. This study hopes to generate data that can help managers and doctors to improve the standard of care they provide in line with the wishes of the patients.Methods: It was a cross sectional study carried out at a major tertiary care hospital of Karachi. Patients between the ages of 18 and 80 years admitted to the hospital for at least one day were included. Patients in the maternity, psychiatry and chemotherapy wards and those in the ICU/CCU were excluded. A pretested, peer reviewed translation of a validated patient satisfaction scale developed by the Picker Institute of Europe was administered.Results: A total of 173 patients (response rate: 78.6 %) filled the questionnaire. Patient satisfaction was at levels comparable to European surveys for most aspects of hospital care. However, nearly half the patients (48%) felt they had to wait too long to get a bed in the hospital after presenting to the ER. 68.6% of the patients said that they were never asked for views on the quality of care provided. 20% of the patients did not find anyone in the staff to talk to about their worries and fears while 27.6% felt that they were given emotional support to only some extent. Up to one third of the patients said they were not provided enough information regarding their operative procedures beforehand.CONCLUSION: Although several components of patient care equal the quality levels of the west, many sections require considerable improvement in order to improve health care provision. The healthcare team needs to get more involved with the patients, providing them greater support and keeping them informed and involved with their medical treatment. Efforts should be made to get regular feedback from the patients

Patients' satisfaction and opinions of their experiences during admission in a tertiary care hospital in Pakistan – a cross sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It is often felt that developing countries need to improve their quality of healthcare provision. This study hopes to generate data that can help managers and doctors to improve the standard of care they provide in line with the wishes of the patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>It was a cross sectional study carried out at a major tertiary care hospital of Karachi. Patients between the ages of 18 and 80 years admitted to the hospital for at least one day were included. Patients in the maternity, psychiatry and chemotherapy wards and those in the ICU/CCU were excluded. A pretested, peer reviewed translation of a validated patient satisfaction scale developed by the Picker Institute of Europe was administered.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 173 patients (response rate: 78.6 %) filled the questionnaire. Patient satisfaction was at levels comparable to European surveys for most aspects of hospital care. However, nearly half the patients (48%) felt they had to wait too long to get a bed in the hospital after presenting to the ER. 68.6% of the patients said that they were never asked for views on the quality of care provided. 20% of the patients did not find anyone in the staff to talk to about their worries and fears while 27.6% felt that they were given emotional support to only some extent. Up to one third of the patients said they were not provided enough information regarding their operative procedures beforehand.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Although several components of patient care equal the quality levels of the west, many sections require considerable improvement in order to improve health care provision. The healthcare team needs to get more involved with the patients, providing them greater support and keeping them informed and involved with their medical treatment. Efforts should be made to get regular feedback from the patients.</p

Liaison psychiatry and depression in medical inpatients

Objective: To assess the frequency of depression among hospitalized patients, the socio-demographic variables associated with depression and the number of cases referred by physicians to Psychiatry.Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out at the Aga Khan University Hospital Karachi. An anonymous Urdu version of the WHO-developed self-reporting questionnaire (SRQ) was administered to inpatients meeting the inclusion criteria. Data was analyzed by SPSS version 13.0.RESULT: Of the 225 patients approached, 178 completed the questionnaire (men= 45.2%, women = 54.8%). The mean age of the sample was 45.2 years. Out of the total 30.5% of patients were identified as having probable depression, among which housewives were more likely to be depressed compared to others (p=0.031). Among variable comparison, there with secondary school education or below and those with psychiatric co-morbidities, showed significantly greater prevalence of depression (p=0.003) and (p=0.005) respectively. Attending physicians correctly diagnosed 7 (13%) patients and referred only 3 patients to Psychiatry over the previous month.CONCLUSION: The prevalence of depression among inpatients is comparable to that in the general population. Being a housewife, level at or below secondary school education and having a past psychiatric history are significant factors associated with depression in medical inpatients. A very small number of depressed cases were referred to a psychiatrist

Career intentions of medical students in the UK: a national, cross-sectional study (AIMS study)

Objective To determine current UK medical students’ career intentions after graduation and on completing the Foundation Programme (FP), and to ascertain the motivations behind these intentions.Design Cross-sectional, mixed-methods survey of UK medical students, using a non-random sampling method.Setting All 44 UK medical schools recognised by the General Medical Council.Participants All UK medical students were eligible to participate. The study sample consisted of 10 486 participants, approximately 25.50% of the medical student population.Outcome measures Career intentions of medical students postgraduation and post-FP, motivations behind these career intentions, characterising the medical student population and correlating demographic factors and propensity to leave the National Health Service (NHS).Results The majority of participating students (8806/10 486, 83.98%) planned to complete both years of the FP after graduation, with under half of these students (4294/8806, 48.76%) intending to pursue specialty training thereafter. A subanalysis of career intentions after the FP by year of study revealed a significant decrease in students’ intentions to enter specialty training as they advanced through medical school. Approximately a third of surveyed students (3392/10 486, 32.35%) intended to emigrate to practise medicine, with 42.57% (n=1444) of those students not planning to return. In total, 2.89% of students intended to leave medicine altogether (n=303). Remuneration, work-life balance and working conditions were identified as important factors in decision-making regarding emigration and leaving the profession. Subgroup analyses based on gender, type of schooling, fee type and educational background were performed. Only 17.26% of surveyed students were satisfied or very satisfied with the overall prospect of working in the NHS.Conclusions The Ascertaining the career Intentions of UK Medical Students study highlights UK students’ views and career intentions, revealing a concerning proportion of those surveyed considering alternative careers or emigration. Addressing factors such as remuneration, work-life balance and working conditions may increase retention of doctors and improve workforce planning efforts

The role of medical schools in UK students’ career intentions: findings from the AIMS study

Abstract Objectives To investigate differences in students’ career intentions between UK medical schools. Design Cross-sectional, mixed-methods online survey. Setting The primary study included all 44 UK medical schools, with this analysis comprising 42 medical schools. Participants Ten thousand four hundred eighty-six UK medical students. Main outcome measures Career intentions of medical students, focusing on differences between medical schools. Secondary outcomes included variation in medical students’ satisfaction with a prospective career in the NHS, by medical school. Results 2.89% of students intended to leave medicine altogether, with Cambridge Medical School having the highest proportion of such respondents. 32.35% of respondents planned to emigrate for practice, with Ulster medical students being the most likely. Of those intending to emigrate, the University of Central Lancashire saw the highest proportion stating no intentions to return. Cardiff Medical School had the greatest percentage of students intending to assume non-training clinical posts after completing FY2. 35.23% of participating medical students intended to leave the NHS within 2 years of graduating, with Brighton and Sussex holding the highest proportion of these respondents. Only 17.26% were satisfied with the prospect of working in the NHS, with considerable variation nationally; Barts and the London medical students had the highest rates of dissatisfaction. Conclusions This study reveals variability in students’ career sentiment across UK medical schools, emphasising the need for attention to factors influencing these trends. A concerning proportion of students intend to exit the NHS within 2 years of graduating, with substantial variation between institutions. Students’ intentions may be shaped by various factors, including curriculum focus and recruitment practices. It is imperative to re-evaluate these aspects within medical schools, whilst considering the wider national context, to improve student perceptions towards an NHS career. Future research should target underlying causes for these disparities to facilitate improvements to career satisfaction and retention. </jats:sec

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83-7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97-2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14-1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25-1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83–7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97–2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14–1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25–1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable

Characteristics and outcomes of an international cohort of 600 000 hospitalized patients with COVID-19

Background: We describe demographic features, treatments and clinical outcomes in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) COVID-19 cohort, one of the world's largest international, standardized data sets concerning hospitalized patients. Methods: The data set analysed includes COVID-19 patients hospitalized between January 2020 and January 2022 in 52 countries. We investigated how symptoms on admission, co-morbidities, risk factors and treatments varied by age, sex and other characteristics. We used Cox regression models to investigate associations between demographics, symptoms, co-morbidities and other factors with risk of death, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Results: Data were available for 689 572 patients with laboratory-confirmed (91.1%) or clinically diagnosed (8.9%) SARS-CoV-2 infection from 52 countries. Age [adjusted hazard ratio per 10 years 1.49 (95% CI 1.48, 1.49)] and male sex [1.23 (1.21, 1.24)] were associated with a higher risk of death. Rates of admission to an ICU and use of IMV increased with age up to age 60&nbsp;years then dropped. Symptoms, co-morbidities and treatments varied by age and had varied associations with clinical outcomes. The case-fatality ratio varied by country partly due to differences in the clinical characteristics of recruited patients and was on average 21.5%. Conclusions: Age was the strongest determinant of risk of death, with a ∼30-fold difference between the oldest and youngest groups; each of the co-morbidities included was associated with up to an almost 2-fold increase in risk. Smoking and obesity were also associated with a higher risk of death.&nbsp;The size of our international database and the standardized data collection method make this study a comprehensive international description of COVID-19 clinical features. Our findings may inform strategies that involve prioritization of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who have a higher risk of death

ISARIC-COVID-19 dataset: A Prospective, Standardized, Global Dataset of Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19

The International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) COVID-19 dataset is one of the largest international databases of prospectively collected clinical data on people hospitalized with COVID-19. This dataset was compiled during the COVID-19 pandemic by a network of hospitals that collect data using the ISARIC-World Health Organization Clinical Characterization Protocol and data tools. The database includes data from more than 705,000 patients, collected in more than 60 countries and 1,500 centres worldwide. Patient data are available from acute hospital admissions with COVID-19 and outpatient follow-ups. The data include signs and symptoms, pre-existing comorbidities, vital signs, chronic and acute treatments, complications, dates of hospitalization and discharge, mortality, viral strains, vaccination status, and other data. Here, we present the dataset characteristics, explain its architecture and how to gain access, and provide tools to facilitate its use