As respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine distribution gains traction in Europe and Italy, healthcare workers (HCWs) can strategize about vaccine promotion to increase uptake among patients at risk of RSV consequences, such cardiac patients. This cross-sectional survey investigated the knowledge about and attitude towards RSV and RSV vaccines, and the intention to recommend vaccination within a cardiological hospital in Italy. To explore factors associated with the outcomes of interest, multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted. Of 197 invited HCWs, 78.2% returned the survey. The knowledge about market authorisation for new RSV vaccines for older adults (present in 46.9% of respondents) was significantly associated with the HCWs’ age, education, and previous update on vaccinations. HCWs with a higher educational level and those with a positive attitude towards RSV vaccines safety reported a higher attitude towards the importance of vaccinating people at risk. The willingness of recommending RSV vaccination to patients (70.5% of respondents) was more likely in HCWs who were knowledgeable about market authorisation for RSV vaccines and in physicians. This tempestive research sheds light on current factors influencing the strategies of cardiac HCWs regarding RSV vaccination. The results suggest the need for training events on the protective role of RSV vaccination in cardiac patients.

Background and Objectives: Cardiac patients are particularly at risk of herpes zoster (HZ), which is associated with a higher risk of major cardiovascular events. This research aimed to analyze the knowledge, attitudes and practices towards recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) among cardiac healthcare professionals (HPs). Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in a cardiological hospital in Italy. Multivariate regression models were built to identify factors associated with the outcomes of interest. Results: The response rate was 78.2% (154/197). Overall, age > 50 years and immunosuppression were recognized as risk factors for HZ by 38.3% and 75.3% of respondents, respectively. Regarding RZV, 29.1% of the HPs correctly responded about its schedule and 57.6% about the possibility of administration in immunocompromised individuals. This knowledge was significantly higher in HPs with a higher educational level (odds ratio (OR) = 4.42; 95%CI 1.70–11.47), in those who knew that HZ could cause postherpetic neuralgia (OR = 2.56; 95%CI 1.05–6.25) or major cardiovascular events (OR = 4.23; 95%CI 1.50–11.91), in those who had participated in professional updates on vaccinations (OR = 3.86; 95%CI 1.51–9.87) and in those who stated the need for further information about the RZV (OR = 6.43; 95%CI 1.42–29.98). Younger HPs (coefficient (β) = −0.02; 95%CI −0.04–−0.01), those with a positive attitude toward RZV safety (β = 2.92; 95%CI 2.49–3.36) and those who had previously cared for patients with HZ (β = 0.45; 95%CI 0.03–0.88) reported a more positive attitude toward RZV effectiveness. The practice of recommending vaccination was more prevalent in younger HPs (OR = 0.94; 95%CI 0.89–0.99), in those who had a master’s degree or higher education (OR = 7.21; 95%CI 1.44–36.08), in those with more positive attitudes toward RZV effectiveness (OR = 7.17; 95%CI 1.71–30.03) and in HPs who had already recommended the vaccine to patients in the past (OR = 4.03; 95%CI 1.08–14.96). Conclusions: Despite being a single-center study, our research brings attention to factors that currently impact cardiac HPs’ approaches to RZV. The findings indicate potential measures to enhance HPs’ awareness and practices, ultimately aiming to improve vaccination adherence and reduce the burden associated with HZ.

Background and Objectives: Clinical risk management is essential to patient safety. Nurses are strategically positioned to identify unsafe conditions, near misses, and adverse events. This study assessed nurses’ knowledge of selected clinical risk management definitions, perceptions of patient safety, and self-reported experience of patient-safety event reporting in a cardiovascular hospital in Southern Italy. Methods: A cross-sectional anonymous survey was conducted among registered nurses using a structured questionnaire. Knowledge was measured through a 0–4 index based on correct answers regarding safety culture, near miss, sentinel event, and incident reporting. Perceived overall patient safety was analyzed as an ordinal outcome, and ever reporting of patient-safety events as a binary outcome. Multivariable regression models explored associated factors. Results: The study included 88 nurses; 75.0% were female, and the median age was 47 years (IQR 37–54). Overall, 77.3% reported previous updating on risk management. The median knowledge index was 3 (IQR 2–4), and 62.5% answered at least three of four items correctly. Patient-safety culture domains received high importance scores, with medians ranging from 9 to 10. Overall patient safety was rated as good, very good, or excellent by 63.6% of respondents, and 61.4% had reported at least one patient-safety event. Knowledge was associated with gender and years of professional experience. Higher perceived safety was associated with perceived technological adequacy and patient confidence in care. Conclusions: Beyond the setting-specific findings, the study illustrates how combining factual knowledge, perceived safety, reporting experience, and locally relevant process indicators may support organizational diagnosis and help identify areas requiring more focused quality-improvement assessment.