AimTo determine the efficacy and usefulness of a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) care bundle designed for the initial management of acute exacerbations of COPD and to assess whether it improves quality of care and provides better outcomes.IntroductionThe level of care provided in the emergency department (ED) for COPD exacerbations varies greatly, and there is a need for a more systematic, consistent, evidence-based quality improvement approach to improve outcomes and costs.MethodsA prospective before and after study was carried out in a university teaching hospital. Fifty consecutive patients were identified in the ED with COPD exacerbations and their management was reviewed. Following the education of ED staff and the implementation of a COPD care bundle, the outcome for 51 consecutive patients was analyzed. This COPD care bundle consisted of ten elements considered essential to the management of COPD exacerbations and was scored 0–10 according to the number of items on the checklist implemented correctly.ResultsFollowing implementation, the mean bundle score out of 10 improved from 4.6 to 7 (P<0.001). There was a significant decrease in the unnecessary use of intravenous corticosteroids from 60% to 32% (P=0.003) and also a marked improvement in the use of oxygen therapy, with appropriate treatment increasing from 76% to 96% (P=0.003). Prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism also improved from 54% to 73% (P=0.054). The 30-day readmission rate did not significantly improve.ConclusionThe use of a bundle improves the delivery of care for COPD exacerbations in the ED. There is more appropriate use of therapeutic interventions, especially oxygen therapy and intravenous corticosteroids.

Non-attendance rates at the neurology clinics in our institution are high with almost 10 per cent of attendees admitting to missing an appointment. One of the main reasons why people did not attend was because they simply "forgot" that they had an appointment and the patients favoured a text messaging reminder system to help reduce non-attendance. Almost half of the respondents said that they would be willing to pay a refundable booking fee.

Background:The current severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has raised awareness of vaccine hesitancy. Specific reasons for vaccine hesitancy among people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) have not been fully described. Notably, pwMS may experience higher morbidity from vaccinepreventable diseases such as influenza, pneumococcal disease, and human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated warts and malignancies. Furthermore, screening for immunity against measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) is not standard practice, despite a resurgence of measles and mumps outbreaks in Europe and worldwide. We aimed to evaluate general vaccination status among pwMS to better inform vaccine practices in this cohort. Methods: This was a prospective audit of pwMS attending an Irish tertiary referral MS centre. We designed a questionnaire that explored awareness, uptake, and hesitancy for the influenza, pneumococcal, SARS-CoV-2, HPV, and MMR vaccines. The clinician administered the questionnaire during the outpatient MS clinic. Results: One-hundred-and-five pwMS participated in the audit, mean (SD) age 47.3 (12.8) years, mean MS disease duration 14.1 (9.5) years, median Expanded Disability Severity Scale (EDSS) score 2.0 (IQR 1.0-6.0), forty-nine (46.7%) were taking either maintenance immunosuppressive or immune reconstitution therapies. SARS-CoV-2 vaccine willingness among pwMS was higher (90.5 vs 60-80%) than that reported in other Western countries, and higher than that for the influenza and pneumococcal vaccines (~80%) for which perceived unnecessity and unfamiliarity respectively were the main limiting factors. The primary reason for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy was safety concern. PwMS who were explicitly advised by a healthcare professional to obtain the influenza vaccine were more likely to do so than those who were not (odds ratio, 8.1, 95% CI 2.8 -23.4, p<0.001). Of pwMS currently receiving B-cell therapy (ocrelizumab/rituximab, n=12), all but one (n=11, 91.7%) have never received the pneumococcal vaccine, and a quarter (n=3) were uncertain whether to obtain this in the future. Patient-reported uptake of HPV (1.0%) and MMR (51.4%) vaccines were suboptimal. Prevalence of vaccine promotion among healthcare professionals was low (influenza vaccine, 4.8 -32.4%; pneumococcal vaccine, 0 -18.1%). Conclusions: Vaccine hesitancy is common (10-20%) in pwMS, consequent to insufficient knowledge and misconceptions about vaccination among pwMS and suboptimal vaccine promotion by healthcare professionals who manage pwMS. Conscientious and context-specific vaccination counselling is necessary to tackle vaccine hesitancy among pwMS, including (i) avoiding infection-associated disability accrual during MS relapses, (ii) reducing the potentially higher risk of life-threatening/treatment-refractory complications that may be observed in those who develop vaccine-preventable infections while receiving certain DMTs, and (iii) avoiding attenuated vaccine responses or delayed/interrupted DMT with early pre-treatment vaccine deliv...

Background Healthcare workers are encouraged annually to get vaccinated against influenza. This year in view of COVID-19 pandemic, attitudes of HCWs towards vaccination are particularly important. A cross-sectional study was completed to understand how to best encourage and facilitate the vaccination of HCWs based on the previous years’ findings. Methods An online survey was disseminated to all hospital staff via electronic channels. The clinical audit sphinx software was used for data collection and analysis. Results The total number of responses was n = 728, almost double the rate from 2018 (N = 393). A total of 78% (N = 551) of participants were vaccinated last year. A total of 94% (N = 677) of participants reported their intention to be vaccinated this year. The main barriers listed were being unable to find time (32%, N = 36), side effects (30%, N = 33) and thinking that it does not work (21%, N = 23). The most popular suggestions for how to increase uptake were more mobile immunisation clinics (72%, N = 517) and more information on the vaccine (50%, N = 360). A total of 82% of participants (N = 590) agreed that healthcare workers should be vaccinated, with 56% (N = 405) agreeing that it should be mandatory. Of the participants who were not vaccinated last year (N = 159), 40% (N = 63) agreed that COVID-19 had changed their opinion on influenza immunisation with a further 11% (N = 18) strongly agreeing. Discussion In light of the increasing number of survey participants, more staff were interested in flu vaccination this year than ever before. The COVID-19 pandemic has had some influence on staff’s likelihood to be vaccinated. Feasibility of immunisation and education posed the largest barriers to HCW vaccination.

Objective To evaluate a new intervention intended to increase referral rates from the emergency department (ED) to the palliative medicine service (PMS) in acute hospitals. Methods We conducted a quasi-experimental evaluation in an urban teaching hospital in Dublin, Ireland. Data were collected over two eight-week periods in November/December 2013 and May/June 2015, with the PALliative Medicine in the Emergency Department (PAL.M.ED.™) intervention implemented in the intervening period. All adults who were admitted to the hospital via the ED during the two time periods and who received a palliative care consultation during their hospital stay were included in the study. Our primary analysis evaluated the impact of PAL.M.ED.™ on PMS referral in the ED. Our secondary analysis evaluated the impact of PMS referral in the ED on length of stay (LOS) and utilization, compared to PMS referral later in the admission. We controlled for observed confounding between groups using propensity scores. Results PAL.M.ED.™ was associated with an increase in PMS referral in the ED ( p < 0.005; odds ratio: 10.5 (95%CI: 3.8 to 28.7)). PMS referral in the ED was associated with shorter hospital LOS ( p < 0.005; −10.9 days (95%CI: −17.7 to −4.1)). Conclusions Low PMS referral rates in the ED, and the poor outcomes for patients and hospitals that arise from admissions of those with serious illness, may be mitigated by a proactive intervention to identify appropriate patients at admission.