Introduction: Breaking bad news (BBN) in the emergency department (ED) represents a challenging and stressful situation for physicians. Many medical students and residents feel stressed and uncomfortable with such situations because of insufficient training. Our randomized controlled study aimed to assess the efficacy of a four-hour BBN simulation-based training on perceived self-efficacy, the BBN process, and communication skills.Methods: Medical students and residents were randomized into a 160-hour ED clinical rotation without a formal BBN curriculum (control group [CG], n = 31) or a 156-hour ED clinical rotation and a four-hour BBN simulation-based training (training group [TG], n = 37). Both groups were assessed twice: once at the beginning of the rotation (pre-test) and again four weeks later. Assessments included a BBN evaluation via a simulation with two actors playing family members and the completion of a questionnaire on self-efficacy. Two blinded raters assessed the BBN process with the SPIKES (a delivery protocol for delivering bad news) competence form and communication skills with the modified BBN Assessment Schedule.Results: Group-by-time effects adjusted by study year revealed a significant improvement in TG as compared with CG on self-efficacy (P < 0.001), the BBN process (P < 0.001), and communication skills (P < 0.001). TG showed a significant gain regarding the BBN process (+33.3%, P < 0.001). After the training, students with limited clinical experience prior to the rotation showed BBN performance skills equal to that of students in the CG who had greater clinical experience.Conclusion: A short BBN simulation-based training can be added to standard clinical rotations. It has the potential to significantly improve self-efficacy, the BBN process, and communication skills.

Nursing home residents (NHR) and staff have been disproportionally affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and were therefore prioritised in the COVID-19 vaccination strategy. However, frail older adults...

In Belgium, nursing home staff (NHS) and residents were prioritised for COVID-19 vaccination. However, vaccine hesitancy may have impacted vaccination rates. In this study, a random stratified sample of NHS (N = 1142), vaccinated and unvaccinated, completed an online questionnaire on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (between 31 July and 15 November 2021). NHS who hesitated or refused the vaccine were asked for the main reason for their hesitation/refusal. Those who hesitated, but eventually accepted vaccination, were asked why they changed their minds. Overall, 29.5% of all respondents hesitated before accepting vaccination, were still hesitating, or refused vaccination. Principal reasons were fear of unknown future effects (55.1% of vaccinated participants that hesitated and 19.5% who refused), fear of side-effects (12.7% of vaccinated participants that hesitated and 12.2% who refused), and mistrust in vaccination (10.5% of vaccinated participants that hesitated and 12.2% who refused). For vaccinated participants who hesitated initially, protecting the vulnerable was the main reason they changed their minds. Given this degree of fear and proposals to mandate vaccination among healthcare workers, communicating with NHS on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine should be prioritised.

Introduction: Emergency department (ED) crowding is a major international concern with a negative impact on both patient care and providers. Currently, there is no consensus regarding measure of crowding. Therefore, emergency physicians have to choose between numerous scoring systems, from simple to more complex. The aim of the present study was to compare the complex National Emergency Department Overcrowding Scale (NEDOCS) with the simple ED Occupancy rate (OR) determination. We further evaluated the correlation between these scores and a qualitative assessment of crowding. Method: This study was conducted in two academic and one regional hospital in Liege Province, in Belgium; each accounting for an ED census of over 40,000 patient visits per year. Crowding measures were sampled four times a day, over a two-week period, in January 2016. Results: ED staff considered overcrowding as a major concern in the three ED. Median OR ranged from 68 to 100, while NEDOCS ranged from 64.5 to 76.3. A significant correlation was found in each ED between the OR and the NEDOCS (Pearson r = 0.973, 0.974 and 0.972), as well as between the OR, the NEDOCS and the subjective evaluation by the ED staff (p = 0.001). Conclusion: Crowding evaluation in ED requires validated scores. Our study in three different hospitals demonstrates that simple OR appeared as accurate as more sophisticated NEDOCS. Furthermore, this measure is perfectly correlated with the feeling of ED staff.