Background: Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are being widely used to manage COVID-19 pandemic. However, many results remain unreported or unconfirmed, altering a correct epidemiological surveillance. Objective: Our aim was to evaluate an artificial intelligence–based smartphone app, connected to a cloud web platform, to automatically and objectively read RDT results and assess its impact on COVID-19 pandemic management. Methods: Overall, 252 human sera were used to inoculate a total of 1165 RDTs for training and validation purposes. We then conducted two field studies to assess the performance on real-world scenarios by testing 172 antibody RDTs at two nursing homes and 96 antigen RDTs at one hospital emergency department. Results: Field studies demonstrated high levels of sensitivity (100%) and specificity (94.4%, CI 92.8%-96.1%) for reading IgG band of COVID-19 antibody RDTs compared to visual readings from health workers. Sensitivity of detecting IgM test bands was 100%, and specificity was 95.8% (CI 94.3%-97.3%). All COVID-19 antigen RDTs were correctly read by the app. Conclusions: The proposed reading system is automatic, reducing variability and uncertainty associated with RDTs interpretation and can be used to read different RDT brands. The web platform serves as a real-time epidemiological tracking tool and facilitates reporting of positive RDTs to relevant health authorities.

Background: The use of physical restraints in hospital settings remains a controversial practice due to its ethical, legal, and safety implications. Although restraints are intended to prevent falls or manage agitation, their inappropriate use may compromise patient dignity, autonomy, and quality of care. Current healthcare policies emphasize restraint reduction, appropriate documentation, and professional training as key elements of humanized and safe care. Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study based on an anonymous self-administered survey was conducted in a tertiary university hospital as the diagnostic phase of a quality improvement project aimed at evaluating healthcare professionals’ knowledge, perceptions, and documentation practices related to physical restraint use. A structured ad hoc questionnaire was distributed to registered nurses and nursing assistants working in adult inpatient units using a non-probabilistic convenience sampling strategy. The survey explored training, clinical decision-making, communication with patients and families, awareness of institutional protocols, and use of the electronic health record (EHR). Descriptive analyses and Pearson’s chi-square tests were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics. Results: A total of 241 professionals participated. More than half of respondents (54.8%) reported no formal training in physical restraint use, and only 27.4% considered their training sufficient. Although 86.3% stated they were familiar with restraint indications, only 53.5% were aware of the existence of a structured EHR restraint registry, and just 31.0% consistently completed it. Documentation of restraint removal was particularly low (32.9%). Furthermore, significant discrepancies were observed between regulatory definitions of restraints and professionals’ perceptions regarding practices requiring formal documentation. Statistically significant associations were identified between professional category, perceived training adequacy, and knowledge of physical restraint indications. Conclusions: This diagnostic phase identified substantial gaps between regulatory requirements, professional knowledge, and real-world documentation practices related to physical restraint use. The findings highlight the need for competency-based training strategies, standardized documentation processes, and strengthened institutional leadership to promote patient safety, regulatory compliance, and the humanization of hospital care.

Persons living or working in nursing homes faced a higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infections during the pandemic, resulting in heightened morbidity and mortality among older adults despite robust vaccination efforts. This prospective study evaluated the humoral and cellular immunity in fully vaccinated residents and workers from two nursing homes in Madrid, Spain, from 2020 to 2021. Measurements of IgG levels were conducted in August 2020 (pre-vaccination) and June and September 2021 (post-vaccination), alongside assessments of neutralizing antibodies and cellular responses in September 2021 among the most vulnerable individuals. Follow-up extended until February 2022 to identify risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection or mortality, involving 267 residents (mean age 87.6 years, 81.3% women) and 302 workers (mean age 50.7 years, 82.1% women). Residents exhibited a significantly higher likelihood of experiencing COVID-19 before June 2021 compared with nursing staff (OR [95% CI], 7.2 [3.0 to 17.2], p < 0.01). Participants with a history of previous COVID-19 infection showed more significant increases in IgG levels in August 2020, June 2021 and September 2021, alongside an increased proportion of neutralizing antibodies in the most vulnerable individuals. However, IgG decay remained the same between June and September 2021 based on the previous COVID-19 status. During the Omicron variant wave, residents and staff showed a similar rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Notably, preceding clinical or immunological factors before receiving three vaccination doses did not demonstrate associations with COVID-19 infection or overall mortality in our participant cohort.

Background: The use of physical restraints in hospital settings remains a controversial practice due to its ethical, legal, and safety implications. Although restraints are intended to prevent falls or manage agitation, their inappropriate use may compromise patient dignity, autonomy, and quality of care. Current healthcare policies emphasize restraint reduction, proper documentation, and professional training as key elements of humanized and safe care. Methods: A descriptive, observational cross-sectional study was conducted in a tertiary university hospital to assess healthcare professionals’ knowledge, perceptions, and documentation practices related to physical restraint use. A structured anonymous questionnaire was distributed to nurses and nursing assistants (TCAE) working in adult inpatient units. The survey explored training, clinical decision-making, communication with patients and families, awareness of institutional protocols, and use of the electronic health record (EHR). Descriptive statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics. Results: A total of 241 professionals participated. More than half of respondents (54.8%) reported no formal training in physical restraints, and only 27.4% considered their training sufficient. Although 86.3% stated they were familiar with restraint indications, only 53.5% were aware of the existence of a structured EHR restraint registry, and just 31.0% consistently completed it. Documentation of restraint removal was particularly low (32.9%). Furthermore, significant discrepancies were observed between regulatory definitions of restraints and professionals’ perceptions of which practices require registration. Conclusions: This diagnostic phase reveals substantial gaps between regulatory requirements, professional knowledge, and real-world documentation of physical restraint use. The findings highlight the urgent need for structured training programs, standardized documentation processes, and institutional leadership to improve patient safety, regulatory compliance, and the humanization of hospital care.