Critical care work during COVID-19: a qualitative study of staff experiences in the UK.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To understand National Health Service (NHS) staff experiences of working in critical care during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.Design
Qualitative study using semistructured telephone interviews and rapid analysis, interpreted using Baehr's sociological lens of 'communities of fate'.Participants
Forty NHS staff working in critical care, including 21 nurses, 10 doctors and advanced critical care practitioners, 4 allied health professionals, 3 operating department practitioners and 2 ward clerks. Participants were interviewed between August and October 2020; we purposefully sought the experiences of trained and experienced critical care staff and those who were redeployed.Setting
Four hospitals in the UK.Results
COVID-19 presented staff with a situation of extreme stress, duress and social emergency, leading to a shared set of experiences which we have characterised as a community of fate. This involved not only fear and dread of working in critical care, but also a collective sense of duty and vocation. Caring for patients and families involved changes to usual ways of working, revolving around: reorganisation of space and personnel, personal protective equipment, lack of evidence for treating COVID-19, inability for families to be physically present, and the trauma of witnessing extreme patient acuity and death on a large scale. The stress and isolation of working in critical care during COVID-19 was mitigated by strong teamwork, camaraderie, pride and fulfilment.Conclusion
COVID-19 has changed working practices in critical care and profoundly affected staff physically, mentally and emotionally. Attention needs to be paid to the social and organisational conditions in which individuals work, addressing both practical resourcing and the interpersonal dynamics of critical care provision.
SUBMITTER: Montgomery CM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8137198 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo explore the experiences of, and impact on, staff working in palliative care during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignQualitative multiple case study using semi-structured interviews between November 2020 and April 2021 as part of the CovPall study. Data were analysed using thematic framework analysis.SettingOrganisations providing specialist palliative services in any setting.ParticipantsStaff working in specialist palliative care, purposefully sampled by the criteria of role, care setting and COVID-19 experience.Main outcome measuresExperiences of working in palliative care during the COVID-19 pandemic.ResultsFive cases and 24 participants were recruited (n = 12 nurses, 4 clinical managers, 4 doctors, 2 senior managers, 1 healthcare assistant, 1 allied healthcare professional). Central themes demonstrate how infection control constraints prohibited and diluted participants' ability to provide care that reflected their core values, resulting in experiences of moral distress. Despite organisational, team and individual support strategies, continually managing these constraints led to a 'crescendo effect' in which the impacts of moral distress accumulated over time, sometimes leading to burnout. Solidarity with colleagues and making a valued contribution provided 'moral comfort' for some.ConclusionsThis study provides a unique insight into why and how healthcare staff have experienced moral distress during the pandemic, and how organisations have responded. Despite their experience of dealing with death and dying, the mental health and well-being of palliative care staff was affected by the pandemic. Organisational, structural and policy changes are urgently required to mitigate and manage these impacts.
| S-EPMC9158238 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction Following the World Health Organisation declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic, routine dental care in the UK ceased, and Urgent Dental Care centres (UDCs) were established to offer remote and face-to-face urgent dental treatment for those in need.Aim To explore perceptions and psychosocial experiences of frontline staff providing care at UDCs in England during COVID-19.Method A qualitative research study using a phenomenological approach. Semi-structured interviews were conducted remotely. Using line-by-line coding, data were analysed using a hybrid approach that incorporated both a deductive, theoretical process and an inductive, data-driven process.Results Participants included 29 dentists and nine dental nurses from UDCs across England. Twelve themes were identified and grouped into positive and negative experiences. Positive experiences were: role fulfilment and having a sense of purpose; team unity and collective coping strategies; and strategic teamwork and preparedness for effective organisation of care. Negative experiences included: feeling undervalued and frustrated due to fragmented guidance and communication; sense of unfairness generated by relational challenges; patient demand outstripping UDC capacity; complex decision-making; uncertainty over safety; suffocating PPE hindering effective communication; ineffective communication channels across healthcare sectors; lack of commitment to remote video consultations; and variable referral quality.Conclusions Participants reported experiencing a number of emotional challenges that appeared to be exacerbated by an unsupportive environment, often due to lack of leadership. However, positive experiences and coping strategies were also identified. Collective and sustained efforts at system level to improve the resilience and mental wellbeing of the current and future dental workforce and integration of dentistry into wider healthcare infrastructures are needed.
| S-EPMC8420962 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo develop an understanding of health professionals' experiences of working at the point of care during the COVID-19 pandemic, the impact on their health and well-being and their support needs.DesignA qualitative study using semistructured interviews. Data were analysed using framework analysis.SettingOne large National Health Service integrated care trust.ParticipantsA purposive sample of 19 qualified health professionals (doctors, nurses or allied health professionals), working with patients with COVID-19 admitted to the hospitals between March and May 2020 were eligible to take part.ResultsEight major categories were identified: (1) Working in a 'war zone', (2) 'Going into a war zone without a weapon', (3) 'Patients come first', (4) Impact of COVID-19, (5) Leadership and management, (6) Support systems, (7) Health professionals' support needs, and (8) Camaraderie and pride. Health professionals reported increased levels of stress, anxiety and a lack of sleep. They prioritised their patients' needs over their own and felt a professional obligation to be at work. A key finding was the reported camaraderie among the health professionals where they felt that they were 'fighting this war together'.ConclusionsThis study provides a valuable insight into the experiences of some of the frontline health professionals working in a large London-based hospital trust during the first COVID-19 peak. Findings from this study could be used to inform how managers, leaders and organisations can better support their health professional staff during the current pandemic and beyond.
| S-EPMC8423514 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA large portion of COVID-19 cases and deaths in the United States have occurred in nursing homes; however, current literature including the frontline perspective of staff working in nursing homes is limited. The objective of this qualitative assessment was to better understand what individual and facility level factors may have contributed to the impact of COVID-19 on Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) and Environmental Services (EVS) staff working in nursing homes.MethodsBased on a simple random sample from the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN), 7,520 facilities were emailed invitations requesting one CNA and/or one EVS staff member for participation in a voluntary focus group over Zoom. Facility characteristics were obtained via NHSN and publicly available sources; participant demographics were collected via SurveyMonkey during registration and polling during focus groups. Qualitative information was coded using NVIVO and Excel.ResultsThroughout April 2021, 23 focus groups including 110 participants from 84 facilities were conducted homogenous by participant role. Staffing problems were a recurring theme reported. Participants often cited the toll the pandemic took on their emotional well-being, describing increased stress, responsibilities, and time needed to complete their jobs. The lack of consistent and systematic guidance resulting in frequently changing infection prevention protocols was also reported across focus groups.ConclusionsAddressing concerns of low wages and lack of financial incentives may have the potential to attract and retain employees to help alleviate nursing home staff shortages. Additionally, access to mental health resources could help nursing home staff cope with the emotional burden of the COVID-19 pandemic. These frontline staff members provided invaluable insight and should be included in improvement efforts to support nursing homes recovering from the impact of COVID-19 as well as future pandemic planning.
| S-EPMC8592470 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo explore paramedic experiences of providing care during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic and develop theory in order to inform future policy and practice.DesignQualitative study using constructivist evolved grounded theory (EGT) methodology. One-to-one semistructured interviews were conducted using a general interview guide. Voice over Internet Protocol was used through Skype.SettingConducted between March 2020 and November 2020 in the Welsh Ambulance Services National Health Services Trust UK which serves a population of three million.ParticipantsParamedics were recruited through a poster circulated by email and social media. Following purposive sampling, 20 Paramedics were enrolled and interviewed.ResultsEmergent categories included: Protect me to protect you, Rapid disruption and adaptation, Trust in communication and information and United in hardship. The Basic Social Process was recognised to involve Tragic Choices, conceptualised through an EGT including Tragic personal and professional choices including concerns over personnel protective equipment (PPE), protecting themselves and their families, impact on mental health and difficult clinical decisions, Tragic organisational choices including decision making support, communication, mental health and well-being and Tragic societal choices involving public shows of support, utilisation and resourcing of health services.ConclusionsRich insights were revealed into paramedic care during the COVID-19 pandemic consistent with other research. This care was provided in the context of competing and conflicting decisions and resources, where Tragic Choices have to be made which may challenge life's pricelessness. Well-being support, clinical decision making, appropriate PPE and healthcare resourcing are all influenced by choices made before and during the pandemic, and will continue as we recover and plan for future pandemics. The impact of COVID-19 may persist, especially if we fail to learn, if not we risk losing more lives in this and future pandemics and threatening the overwhelming collective effort which united society in hardship when responding to the COVID-19 Pandemic.Trial registration numberIRAS ID: 282 623.
| S-EPMC8212156 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceDirect reports of the experiences of staff working in group homes for people with serious mental illness (SMI) and/or intellectual or developmental disabilities (ID/DD) are rarely reported. Hearing from workers about their experiences in the COVID-19 pandemic may inform future workforce and public policy.ObjectiveTo gather baseline data on worker experience with the perceived effects of COVID-19 on health and work in the pandemic prior to initiating an intervention to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 and to measure differences in worker experience by gender, race, ethnicity, education, and resident population served (persons with SMI and/or IDD/DD).Design, setting, and participantsThis mixed-mode, cross-sectional survey study was conducted using online then paper-based self-administration from May to September 2021 at the end of the first year of the pandemic. Staff working in 415 group homes that provided care within 6 Massachusetts organizations serving adults aged 18 years or older with SMI and/or ID/DD were surveyed. The eligible survey population included a census of staff who were currently employed in participating group homes during the study period. A total of 1468 staff completed or partially completed surveys. The overall survey response rate was 44% (range by organization, 20% to 52%).Main outcomes and measuresSelf-reported experiential outcomes were measured in work, health, and vaccine completion. Bivariate and multivariate analyses explore experiences by gender, race, ethnicity, education, trust in experts and employers, and population served.ResultsThe study population included 1468 group home staff (864 [58.9%] women; 818 [55.7%] non-Hispanic Black; 98 [6.7%] Hispanic or Latino). A total of 331 (22.5%) group home staff members reported very serious perceived effects on health; 438 (29.8%) reported very serious perceived effects on mental health; 471 (32.1%) reported very serious perceived effects on health of family and friends; and 414 reported very serious perceived effects (28.2%) on access to health services, with statistically significant differences observed by race and ethnicity. Vaccine acceptance was higher among persons with higher educational attainment and trust in scientific expertise and lower among persons who self-reported as Black or Hispanic/Latino. A total of 392 (26.7%) respondents reported needing support for health needs, and 290 (19.8%) respondents reported needing support for loneliness or isolation.Conclusions and relevanceIn this survey study, approximately one-third of group home workers reported serious personal health and access to health care barriers during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Massachusetts. Addressing unmet health needs and access to health and mental health services, including inequities and disparities by race, ethnicity, and education, should benefit staff health and safety, as well as that of the individuals with disabilities who rely on them for support and care.
| S-EPMC10082407 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Few previous studies have considered the experiences of people with long covid returning to work beyond symptoms in terms of employer and other support factors. The aim of this research was to understand the experience of returning to work for those with long covid symptoms in contrast to the non-long covid group who had not experienced COVID-19 during the time restrictions were imposed to limit the spread of COVID-19 infection. Twenty-one participants with long covid and 13 participants who had not had COVID-19 were interviewed. Themes were identified from transcripts using framework analysis. Participants with long covid experienced difficulties returning to work, particularly from fatigue, cognitive symptoms and breathlessness. Symptoms were heterogeneous and fluctuated in severity over time. A lack of understanding from colleagues and managers sometimes led to a premature return to work without adequate support, associated with further long covid relapse. Outside-of-work, support was salient for a successful return to work. The standard phased return offered by employers may be too short and rigid for some people with long covid. They may benefit from a tailored intervention to support a return to work that targets symptom management, and engages with work colleagues, managers, and family members.
| S-EPMC11318866 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo report the experiences of End of Life (EoL) care in UK care homes during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsUK care home staff and family carers of residents in care home took part in remote, semi-structured interviews from October to November 2020, with 20 participants followed-up in March 2021. Interviews were conducted via telephone or online platforms and qualitatively analysed using inductive thematic analysis.ResultsForty-two participants (26 family carers and 16 care home staff) were included in a wider qualitative study exploring the impact on dementia care homes during the pandemic. Of these, 11 family carers and 9 care home staff participated in a follow-up interview. Following descriptive thematic analysis, three central themes concerning EoL care during the pandemic specifically, were conceptualised and redefined through research team discussions: 1) Wasting or losing time; 2) Maintaining control, plans and routine; and 3) Coping with loss and lack of support. Lack of suitable, meaningful visits with people with dementia in care homes resulted in negative feelings of guilt and abandonment with both family carers and care home staff. Where families experienced positive EoL visits, these appeared to breach public health restrictions at that time.ConclusionIt is recommended that care homes receive clear guidance from the government offering equitable contact with relatives at EoL to all family members, to support their grieving and avoid subsequent negative impacts to emotional wellbeing.
| S-EPMC9155982 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic posed an enormous challenge on the public health workforce, leading to the hiring of much temporary staff. Temporary staff may experience poorer working conditions compared to permanent staff. From a public health perspective, we need to know how working conditions are experienced when there is an acute pressure on recruiting sufficient public health care staff. This study aimed to investigate differences in job demands and work functioning between temporary and permanent public health care staff, during the fourth wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands and compare it with available pre-pandemic data from the general working population.MethodsThis cross-sectional study included temporary (n = 193) and permanent (n = 98) public health care staff from a municipal health care service in the north of the Netherlands. The participants completed a questionnaire with items about quantitative, cognitive, emotional demands (Copenhagen PsychoSOcial Questionnaire, COPSOQ, range 1-100) and work functioning (Work Role Functioning Questionnaire, WRFQ, range 1-100). The participants' scores were compared to the general working population and differences between temporary and permanent staff were investigated using linear regression analysis. In addition, explorative analyses were conducted with temporary staff stratified by task and permanent staff by department.ResultsPermanent staff had relatively high scores on job demands compared to the general working population, whereas temporary staff had relatively low scores. On work functioning, permanent staff had similar scores as the general working population and temporary staff had better scores. Compared to permanent staff, temporary staff had lower, i.e. better, scores on quantitative (regression coefficient (B)=-26.7; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) -30.8 to -22.5), cognitive (B=-24.4; 95% CI -29.0 to -19.9), and emotional demands (B=-11.8; 95% CI -16.0 to -7.7), and better scores on work functioning (B = 7.8; 95% CI 4.5 to 11.3).ConclusionsTemporary staff experienced lower job demands and reported better work functioning than permanent staff. The acute expansion of the public health workforce did not seem to negatively impact the job demands and work functioning of temporary public health care staff.
| S-EPMC11375891 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimThe COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on parental presence in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) during the first wave. The NICU team at the Rosie Hospital, Cambridge, endeavoured to explore the impact on parent and staff experiences of supporting parents throughout the period when visiting was restricted, between 13th August and 11th September 2020.MethodsBespoke surveys were designed following the first lockdown to gather information on the impact on staff and parents. The questions were developed in the context of initial observations and conversations with staff and parents.ResultsThe findings of this study have illustrated the extent of the restrictions on parental wellbeing and mood, with the restrictions having had an adverse effect on these. In addition, the findings illustrate the adverse effect that the parents reported due to the restricted presence in terms of their babies' wellbeing, parent-infant bonding, partners' wellbeing, parental confidence, the ability to breastfeed confidently and parents' access to the medical teams.ConclusionThe findings of this study have a number of clinical implications for parents and staff. Namely, the data supported the decision not to close NICU again during the second and third waves.
| S-EPMC8652665 | biostudies-literature