Dataset Information

Qualitative study of UK health professionals' experiences of working at the point of care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To 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.

Design

A qualitative study using semistructured interviews. Data were analysed using framework analysis.

Setting

One large National Health Service integrated care trust.

Participants

A 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.

Results

Eight 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'.

Conclusions

This 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.

SUBMITTER: Baldwin S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8423514 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe number of remote video consultations between doctors and patients has increased during the last few years and especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. The health care service is faced with rising rates of chronic illness and many patients who are more confident in self-management of their illnesses. In addition, there is an improved long-term outlook for serious conditions, such as cancer, that might require flexibility in everyday life.ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate how medical doctors in the outpatient clinic use and experience the use of video consultations with hematological patients, with a focus on relational and organizational aspects.MethodsThe study was designed as an explorative and qualitative study. Data were collected via participant observations and focus group interviews with medical doctors.ResultsThe study identified possibilities and barriers in relation to adapting to the alternative way of meeting patients in the clinical setting. One of the main findings in this study is that the medical doctors were afraid that they missed important observations, as they were not able to perform a physical examination, if needed. They also emphasized that handshake and eye contact were important in order to get an overall impression of the patient's situation. It also became clear that the medical doctors used body language a lot more during video consultation compared with consultation in a physical setting. The medical doctors found the contact with the patients via the screen to be good, and the fact that the technology was working well made them feel comfortable with the video consultation.ConclusionsIn this study, we found that the medical doctors were able to maintain good contact with the patients despite the screen and were able to assess the patients in a satisfying manner. However, there were still uncertainties among some doctors about the fact that they could not examine the patients physically. New knowledge about how to use gestures and body language during video consultation was obtained.

Project description:ImportanceMoral injury in health care professionals (HPs) has worsened over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. The trauma and burnout associated with moral injury has profound implications for the mental health of HPs.ObjectiveTo explore the potential factors associated with moral injury for HPs who were involved in patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, prior to the availability of vaccines.Design, setting, and participantsIn this qualitative study, HPs were actively recruited to participate in a survey via snowball sampling via email and social media in 2 phases of 5 weeks each: April 24 to May 30, 2020 (phase 1), and October 24 to November 30, 2020 (phase 2). Overall, 1831 respondents answered demographic questions and assessments for moral injury, intrinsic religiosity, and burnout. Of those, 1344 responded to the open-ended questions. Responses to open-ended questions were coded iteratively and thematically analyzed within the framework of moral injury.ExposuresWorking in a patient care setting during the COVID-19 pandemic prior to the availability of vaccines.Main outcomes and measuresInductive thematic analysis of open-response survey answers identified dominant emotions and common stressors associated with moral injury.ResultsThere were 335 individuals (109 [32.6%] aged 35-44 years; 288 [86.0%] women; 294 [87.8%] White) in phase 1 and 1009 individuals (384 [38.1%] aged 35-44 years; 913 [90.5%] women; 945 [93.7%] White) in phase 2. In phase 1, the respondents were predominantly nurses (100 [29.9%]), physicians (78 [23.3%]), advanced practice practitioners (APPs) (70 [20.9%]), and chaplains (55 [16.4%]). In phase 2, the respondents were predominantly nurses (589 [58.4%]), physicians (114 [11.3%]), and APPs (104 [10.3%]). HPs faced numerous stressors, such as fear of contagion, stigmatization, short-staffing, and inadequate personal protective equipment. The emotions experienced were (1) fear in phase 1, then fatigue in phase 2; (2) isolation and alienation; and (3) betrayal.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that HPs experienced moral injury during the COVID-19 pandemic. Moral injury was not only experienced after a single moral dilemma but also from working in morally injurious environments. These experiences can serve as potential starting points for organizations to engender and enhance organizational and individual recovery, team building, and trust. System-level solutions that address shortages in staffing and personal protective equipment are needed to promote HP well-being.

Project description:BackgroundHealth policy in many countries directs treatment to the lowest effective care level and encourages collaboration between primary and specialist mental health care. A number of models for collaborative care have been developed, and patient benefits are being reported. Less is known about what enables and prevents implementation and sustainability of such models regarding the actions and attitudes of stakeholders on the ground. This article reports from a qualitative sub-study of a cluster-RCT testing a model for collaborative care in Oslo, Norway. The model involved the placement of psychologists and psychiatrists from a community mental health centre in each intervention GP practice. GPs could seek their input or advice when needed and refer patients to them for assessment (including assessment of the need for external services) or treatment.MethodsWe conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with GPs (n = 7), CMHC specialists (n = 6) and patients (n = 11) in the intervention arm. Sample specific topic guides were used to investigate the experience of enablers and barriers to the collaborative care model. Data were subject to stepwise deductive-inductive thematic analysis.ResultsParticipants reported positive experiences of how the model improved accessibility. First, co-location made GPs and CMHC specialists accessible to each other and facilitated detailed, patient-centred case collaboration and learning through complementary skills. The threshold for patients' access to specialist care was lowered, treatment could commence early, and throughput increased. Treatment episodes were brief (usually 5-10 sessions) and this was too brief according to some patients. Second, having experienced mental health specialists in the team and on the front line enabled early assessment of symptoms and of the type of treatment and service that patients required and were entitled to, and who could be treated at the GP practice. This improved both care pathways and referral practices. Barriers revolved around the organisation of care. Logistical issues could be tricky but were worked out. The biggest obstacle was the funding of health care at a structural level, which led to economic losses for both the GP practices and the CMHC, making the model unsustainable.ConclusionsParticipants identified a range of benefits of collaborative care for both patients and services. However, the funding system in effect penalises collaborative work. It is difficult to see how policy aiming for successful, sustainable collaboration can be achieved without governments changing funding structures.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03624829.