Post-COVID syndrome manifests with a diverse array of symptoms for which no standard care plan currently exists. Many questions were raised by patients, which underscored the need for a validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM). Therefore, a post-COVID module was developed to be included in the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC-) tool. The ABCC-tool evaluates and visualises the perceived physical, emotional and social burden of one or multiple chronic disease(s) using a balloon diagram and aims to facilitate person-centred care and structured discussions between patients and healthcare professionals. This study explores the patients’ perspective on the content of the ABCC-tool for post-COVID and the tool’s usability in a home-based setting.

All patients who completed the ABCC-tool for post-COVID were invited for an online semi-structured interview. We selected post-COVID patients who had used the tool in the past three months. Interviews were audio recorded and analysed using a thematic approach with Atlas.ti version 23.

Nineteen post-COVID patients (10 males, mean age 56) were interviewed between May and August 2024. The tool was regarded as user-friendly, and patients indicated they would use the tool again in the future. Patients valued the tool’s broad range of topics, some of which are often overlooked in standard healthcare consultations. The tool was comprehensible and relevant according to all patients. The balloon diagram was easy to understand, but a legend explaining the colours of the balloons was preferred. Other suggestions for improvement included adding open-text fields and periodic reminders to increase usability and adding long-term data.

The ABCC-tool is a promising instrument for post-COVID patients, offering a structured way to monitor and communicate experienced burden in addition to standard healthcare consultations. Refinements addressing usability and comprehensiveness are recommended to facilitate its integration into clinical practices.

Physicians are increasingly interested in part-time employment. However, the impact of part-time work on efficiency and quality of care of inpatients is unknown.

To investigate the association between part-time clinical work of hospitalists in General Internal Medicine (GIM) and resource utilisation and short-term patient outcomes.

Retrospective study.

GIM wards of 3 Swiss teaching hospitals.

Each inpatient was categorised as having received care mainly (>50%) by part-time or full-time hospitalists. Part-time clinical work was defined as employment of

Primary outcome was length of hospital stay, secondary outcomes included 30-day readmission, in-hospital mortality, hospitalisation cost and time to completion of the discharge letter. We assessed the association between both groups and outcomes using generalised estimating equations, clustering for individual patients and adjusting for patient and hospitalist characteristics.

There was no statistically relevant difference in length of stay in cases cared for mainly by part-time (mean 7.3 days, 95% CI 7.1 to 7.6) compared with full-time hospitalists (mean 7.6 days, 95% CI 7.3 to 7.8; p=0.18). Time to completion of the discharge letter was longer in the part-time (mean 11.4 days, 95% CI 11.0 to 11.8) versus full-time group (mean 10.9 days, 95% CI 10.6 to 11.2, p=0.049). There was no statistically significant difference between groups for the other outcomes.

We found no evidence that part-time clinical work of hospitalists negatively affects resource utilisation and short-term patient outcomes compared with full-time work.