Dataset Information

Baseline well-being, perceptions of critical incidents, and openness to debriefing in community hospital emergency department clinical staff before COVID-19, a cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Emergency department personnel routinely bear witness to traumatic experiences and critical incidents that can affect their own well-being. Peer support through debriefing has demonstrated positive impacts on clinicians' well-being following critical incidents. This study explored community hospital emergency department staff's perceptions of critical incidents, assessed openness to debriefing and measured baseline well-being. Our analysis provides a baseline of provider well-being immediately prior to the local onset of COVID-19. The potential need for additional resources to support frontline providers during the pandemic can be evaluated.

Method

We conducted a cross-sectional study for 4-weeks prior to the first COVID-19 case in Connecticut using a survey offered to an interprofessional group of emergency department clinical staff. The main outcome measures were the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Professional Quality of Life (ProQOL) scale. Pearson's chi-square test was used to identify significant differences in perceptions of critical incidents and debriefings between professional categories. One-way ANOVA and Tukey's test were used to analyze significant differences in well-being between professional categories.

Results

Thirty-nine clinical personnel from St. Vincent's Emergency Department responded to the survey. Events frequently selected as critical incidents were caring for critically ill children (89.7%), mass casualty events (84.6%), and death of a patient (69.2%). Critical incidents were commonly reported (81.6%) as occurring once per week. Additionally, 76.2% of participants reported wanting to discuss a critical incident with their team. Across all respondents, 45.7% scored borderline or abnormal for anxiety, 55.9% scored moderate for burnout, and 55.8% scored moderate to high for secondary traumatic stress.

Conclusions

At baseline, providers reported caring for critically ill children, mass casualty events, and death of a patient as critical incidents, which typically occurred once per week. Death of a patient occurs at increased frequency during the protracted mass casualty experience of COVID-19 and threatens provider well-being. Receptiveness to post-event debriefing is high but the method is still underutilized. With nearly half of staff scoring borderline or abnormal for anxiety, burnout, and secondary traumatic stress at baseline, peer support measures should be implemented to protect frontline providers' well-being during and after the pandemic.

SUBMITTER: Cantu L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7558255 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionEmergency clinicians on the frontline of the coronavirus pandemic experience a range of emotions including anxiety, fear, and grief. Debriefing can help clinicians process these emotions, but the coronavirus pandemic makes it difficult to create a physically and psychologically safe space in the emergency department (ED) to perform this intervention. In response, we piloted a video-based debriefing program to support emergency clinician well-being. We report the details of our program and results of our evaluation of its acceptability and perceived value to emergency clinicians during the pandemic.MethodsED attending physicians, resident physicians, and non-physician practitioners (NPP) at our quaternary-care academic medical center were invited to participate in role-based, weekly one-hour facilitated debriefings using Zoom. ED attendings with experience in debriefing led each session and used an explorative approach that focused on empathy and normalizing reactions. At the end of the pilot, we distributed to participants an anonymous 10-point survey that included multiple-answer questions and visual analogue scales.ResultsWe completed 18 debriefings with 68 unique participants (29 attending physicians, 6 resident physicians, and 33 NPPs. A total of 76% of participants responded to our survey and 77% of respondents participated in at least two debriefings. Emergency clinicians reported that the most common reasons to participate in the debriefings were "to enhance my sense of community and connection" (81%) followed by "to support colleagues" (75%). Debriefing with members of the same role group (92%) and the Zoom platform (81%) were considered to be helpful aspects of the debriefing structure. Although emergency clinicians found these sessions to be useful (78.8 +/- 17.6) interquartile range: 73-89), NPPs were less comfortable speaking up (58.5 +/- 23.6) than attending physicians (77.8 +/- 25.0) (p = < 0.008).ConclusionEmergency clinicians participating in a video-based debriefing program during the coronavirus pandemic found it to be an acceptable and useful approach to support emotional well-being. Our program provided participants with a platform to support each other and maintain a sense of community and connection. Other EDs should consider implementing a debriefing program to safeguard the emotional well-being of their emergency clinician workforce.

Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has been associated with stress and challenges for healthcare professionals, especially for those working in the front-line of treating COVID-19 patients. This study aimed to: 1) assess changes in well-being and perceived stress symptoms of Dutch emergency department (ED) staff in the course of the first COVID-19 wave, and 2) assess and explore stressors experienced by ED staff since the COVID-19 outbreak.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study. An online questionnaire was administered during June-July 2020 to physicians, nurses and non-clinical staff of four EDs in the Netherlands. Well-being and stress symptoms (i.e., cognitive, emotional and physical) were scored for the periods pre, during and after the first COVID-19 wave using the World Health Organization Well-Being Index (WHO-5) and a 10-point Likert scale. Stressors were assessed and explored by rating experiences with specific situations (i.e., frequency and intensity of distress) and in free-text narratives. Quantitative data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and generalized estimating equations (GEE). Narratives were analyzed thematically.ResultsIn total, 192 questionnaires were returned (39% response). Compared to pre-COVID-19, the mean WHO-5 index score (range: 0-100) decreased significantly with 14.1 points (p < 0.001) during the peak of the first wave and 3.7 points (< 0.001) after the first wave. Mean self-perceived stress symptom levels almost doubled during the peak of the first wave (≤0.005). Half of the respondents reported experiencing more moral distress in the ED since the COVID-19 outbreak. High levels of distress were primarily found in situations where the staff was unable to provide or facilitate necessary emotional support to a patient or family. Analysis of 51 free-texts revealed witnessing suffering, high work pressure, fear of contamination, inability to provide comfort and support, rapidly changing protocols regarding COVID-19 care and personal protection, and shortage of protection equipment as important stressors.ConclusionsThe first COVID-19 wave took its toll on ED staff. Actions to limit drop-out and illness among staff resulting from psychological distress are vital to secure acute care for (non-)COVID-19 patients during future infection waves.

Project description:IntroductionStress at work and psychosocial risks are a major public health problem. Sophrology and neurolinguistic programming (NLP) have demonstrated benefits in terms of mental, physical and social health, both in the general population and in patients, and both in and out of hospital settings. However, these approaches have never been provided at the hospital for the benefit of health professionals at risk of suffering at work. In general, we aim to demonstrate the effectiveness of a hospital sophrology/NLP intervention for health care professionals at risk of stress-related disorders. The secondary objectives are to study (i) within-group, and (ii) between-group): (1) effects on mental, physical, and social health; (2) persistence of effect; (3) relationships between job perception and mental, physical, and social health; (4) intervention success factors (personality and job perception, attendance and practice, other); (5) effects on other stress biomarkers (other measures of autonomic nervous system activity, DHEAS, cortisol, etc.).MethodsOur study will be a randomized controlled prospective study (research involving the human person of type 2). The study will be proposed to any health-care workers (HCW) or any non-HCW (NHCW) from a healthcare institution (such as CHU of Clermont-Ferrand, other hospitals, clinics, retirement homes). Participants will benefit from NLP and sophrology interventions at the hospital. For both groups: (i) heart rate variability, skin conductance and saliva biomarkers will be assessed once a week during the intervention period (6 to 8 sophrology sessions) and once by month for the rest of the time; (ii) the short questionnaire will be collected once a week during the whole protocol (1-2 min); (iii) the long questionnaire will be assessed only 5 times: at baseline (M0), month 1 (M1), month 3 (M3), month 5 (M5) and end of the protocol (M7).Ethics and disseminationThe protocol, information and consent form had received the favorable opinion from the Ethics Committee. Notification of the approval of the Ethics Committee was sent to the study sponsor and the competent authority (ANSM). The study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov under the identification number NCT05425511 after the French Ethics Committee's approval. The results will be reported according to the CONSORT guidelines.Strengths and limitations of this studyThe psychological questionnaires in this study are self-assessed. It is also possible that responses suffer from variation. For the study, participants need to attend 6 to 8 sophrology sessions and one visit per month for 7 months, which might seem demanding. Therefore, to make sure that participants will complete the protocol, two persons will be fully in charge of the participants' follow-up.

Project description:ImportanceUnderstanding youth well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic can help appropriately allocate resources and inform policies to support youth.ObjectiveTo examine caregiver-reported changes in the psychological well-being of their children 3 to 4 months after the start of COVID-19 stay-at-home orders, and to examine the association of caregiver-reported COVID-19 exposure and family stressors with caregiver perceptions of child psychological well-being.Design, setting, and participantsThis survey study used an anonymous survey distributed via email from June 24 to July 15, 2020, to 350 000 families of students attending public schools in Chicago, Illinois. The a priori hypotheses were that caregivers would report worsening in child psychological well-being during the closure period compared with preclosure and that exposure to COVID-19-related stressors would be associated with a higher probability of worsening child psychological well-being. Data were analyzed from September 10, 2020, to March 15, 2021.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes were 7 mental health concerns and 5 positive adjustment characteristics reported by caregivers using a retrospective pre-post design. COVID-19 exposure and family stressors were also reported by caregivers.ResultsAmong 350 000 families invited to participate, 32 217 caregivers (10 827 [39.3%] White, 8320 [30.2%] Latinx, 6168 [22.4%] Black; 2223 [8.1%] with multiple or other races/ethnicities) completed the survey on behalf of 49 397 children in prekindergarten through 12th grade. Child-specific outcomes were reported for 40 723 to 40 852 children depending on the specific question. The frequency of caregiver endorsement of youth mental health concerns ranged from 0.1 percentage point (suicidal ideation or self-harm, reported by 191 caregivers [0.5%] preclosure vs 246 caregivers [0.6%] during closure; P < .001) to 28.3 percentage points (loneliness, reported by 1452 caregivers [3.6%] preclosure vs 13 019 caregivers [31.9%] during closure; P < .001) higher after the end of in-person instruction compared with preclosure. Frequency of caregiver endorsement of youth positive adjustment characteristics ranged from -13.4 percentage points (plans for the future, reported by 18 114 caregivers [44.3%] preclosure vs 12 601 caregivers [30.9%] during closure; P < .001) to -30.9 percentage points (positive peer relationships, reported by 24 666 caregivers [60.4%] preclosure vs 19 130 caregivers [46.8%] during closure; P < .001) lower after the end of in-person instruction. Significant differences in COVID-19 exposure were observed across racial/ethnic (F3,27 534 = 614.8; P < .001) and household income strata (F5,27 506 = 842.0; P < .001). After accounting for covariates, all mental health concerns increased in probability (eg, angry: odds ratio, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.48-1.62]; P < .001) and all the positive adjustment characteristics decreased in probability (eg, hopeful or positive: odds ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.84-0.92]; P < .001) as COVID-19 exposure and family stressors increased.Conclusions and relevanceIn this survey study of caregivers during the COVID-19 pandemic, COVID-19 and resulting exposure to stress were associated with worse youth psychological well-being, demonstrating the need for a comprehensive public health approach that prioritizes children's well-being and draws broad public attention to the mental health needs of youth.

Project description:The US Public Health Service smoking cessation practice guideline specifically recommends that physicians and nurses strongly advise their patients who use tobacco to quit, but the best approach for attaining this goal in the emergency department (ED) remains unknown. The aim of this study was to characterize emergency physicians' (EPs) and nurses' (ENs) perceptions of cessation counseling and to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation of the 5 A's framework (Ask-Advise-Assess-Assist-Arrange) in the ED.We conducted semi-structured, face-to-face interviews of 11 EPs and 19 ENs following a pre-post implementation trial of smoking cessation guidelines in two study EDs. We used purposeful sampling to target EPs and ENs with different attitudes toward cessation counseling, based on their responses to a written survey (Decisional Balance Questionnaire). Conventional content analysis was used to inductively characterize the issues raised by study participants and to construct a coding structure, which was then applied to study transcripts.The main findings of this study converged upon three overarching domains: 1) reactions to the intervention; 2) perceptions of patients' receptivity to cessation counseling; and 3) perspectives on ED cessation counseling and preventive care. ED staff expressed ambivalence toward the implementation of smoking cessation guidelines. Both ENs and EPs agreed that the delivery of smoking cessation counseling is important, but that it is not always practical in the ED on account of time constraints, the competing demands of acute care, and resistance from patients. Participants also called attention to the need for improved role clarity and teamwork when implementing the 5 A's in the ED.There are numerous challenges to the implementation of smoking cessation guidelines in the ED. ENs are generally willing to take the lead in offering brief cessation counseling, but their efforts need to be reinforced by EPs. ED systems need to address workflow, teamwork, and practice policies that facilitate prescription of smoking cessation medication, referral for cessation counseling, and follow-up in primary care. The results of this qualitative evaluation can be used to guide the design of future ED intervention studies.ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT00756704.