Dataset Information

The impact of COVID-19 on the wellbeing of the UK nursing and midwifery workforce during the first pandemic wave: A longitudinal survey study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The specific challenges experienced by the nursing and midwifery workforce in previous pandemics have exacerbated pre-existing professional and personal challenges, and triggered new issues. We aimed to determine the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the UK nursing and midwifery workforce and identify potential factors associated with signs of post-traumatic stress disorder.

Methods

A United Kingdom national online survey was conducted at three time-points during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic between April and August 2020 (T1 and T2 during initial wave; T3 at three-months following the first wave). All members of the UK registered and unregistered nursing and midwifery workforce were eligible to participate. The survey was promoted via social media and through organisational email and newsletters. The primary outcome was an Impact of Events Scale-Revised score indicative of a post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis (defined using the cut-off score ≥33). Multivariable logistic regression modelling was used to assess the association between explanatory variables and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Results

We received 7840 eligible responses (T1- 2040; T2- 3638; T3- 2162). Overall, 91.6% participants were female, 77.2% were adult registered nurses, and 28.7% were redeployed during the pandemic. An Impact of Events Scale-Revised score ≥33 (probable post-traumatic stress disorder) was observed in 44.6%, 37.1%, and 29.3% participants at T1, T2, and T3 respectively. At all three time-points, both personal and workplace factors were associated with probable post-traumatic stress disorder, although some specific associations changed over the course of the pandemic. Increased age was associated with reduced probable post-traumatic stress disorder at T1 and T2 (e.g. 41-50 years at T1 odds ratio (OR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42-0.86), but not at T3. Similarly, redeployment with inadequate/ no training was associated with increased probable post-traumatic stress disorder at T1 and T2, but not at T3 (T1 OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.06-1.77; T3 OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.89-1.55). A lack of confidence in infection prevention and control training was associated with increased probable post-traumatic stress disorder at all three time-points (e.g. T1 OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.11-1.97).

Conclusion

A negative psychological impact was evident 3-months following the first wave of the pandemic. Both personal and workplace are associated with adverse psychological effects linked to the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings will inform how healthcare organisations should respond to staff wellbeing needs both during the current pandemic, and in planning for future pandemics.

SUBMITTER: Couper K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8673915 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEmerging evidence of psychosocial problems in CKD patients has led to an acceptance that a focus on the emotional wellbeing of the patient should be included in the provision of comprehensive CKD care. It is unclear if an increased attention for psychosocial needs in guidelines and policy documents has led to a rise in psychosocial staffing levels or change in composition of staff since the last workforce mapping in 2002. This paper offers a critical analysis and in-depth discussion of findings and their implications, in addition to providing an international perspective and exposing gaps in current knowledge.MethodsData on psychosocial staffing levels was taken from a survey based on the Scottish Renal Association's (SRA) staffing survey that was sent to all units in England, Wales and Northern-Ireland in 2016. In addition, data from a psychosocial staffing survey designed by and distributed via psychosocial professional groups was used. This data was then completed with Freedom of Information (FOI) requests and collated to describe the current renal psychosocial workforce in all 84 UK renal units. This was compared to results from the last renal workforce mapping in 2002.ResultsThe results from this mapping show great variability in models of service provision, significant exceeding of benchmarks for staffing levels, and a change in staffing patterns over the past 15 years. Adult psychology services have increased in number, but provision remains low due to increased patient numbers, whereas adult social work and paediatric services have decreased.ConclusionA lack in the provision of renal psychosocial services has been identified, together with the absence of a general service provision model. These findings provide a valuable benchmark for units, a context from which to review and monitor provision alongside patient need. Along with recommendations, this paper forms a foundation for future research and workforce planning. Research into best practice models of service provision and the psychosocial needs of CKD patients lies at the heart of the answers to many identified questions.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented concerns on the safety, well-being, quality of life(QOL), and training of the orthopedic resident physician workforce worldwide. Although orthopedic residency programs across the globe have attempted to redefine resident roles, educational priorities, and teaching methods, the global orthopedic residents' perspective with regards to their safety, well-being, QOL, and training, taking into account regional variances remains unknown.MethodsA 56-item-questionnaire-based cross-sectional survey was conducted online during the COVID-19 pandemic involving 1193 orthopedic residents from 29 countries across six geographical regions to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the well-being, safety, and training of orthopedic residents at a global level, as well as to analyze the challenges confronted by orthopedic residency programs around the world to safeguard and train their resident workforce during this period.ResultsThe total response rate was 90.3%(1077/1193). Time spent on residency-training activities decreased by 24.7 h/week (95% CI, -26.5 to -22.9,p < 0.001), with 50.2% (n = 541) residents performing duties outside their residency curriculum. 80.5% (n = 869) residents had no prior experience working in infectious outbreaks. A greater percentage of residents from Middle East, Asia and Europe were redeployed to the COVID-19 frontlines, p < 0.001. Only 46.5% (n = 491) and 58.4% (n = 600) of residents underwent training in critical care or PPE (Personal Protective equipment) usage, respectively; 28.5% (n = 302) residents (majority from Africa, Middle East, South America) reported lack of institutional guidelines to handle infectious outbreaks; 15.4% (n = 160) residents (majority from Africa, Asia, Europe) had concerns regarding availability of PPE and risk of infection. An increase in technology-based virtual teaching modalities was observed. The most significant stressor for residents was the concern for their family's health. Residents' QOL significantly decreased from 80/100 (IQR 70-90) to 65/100 (IQR 50-80) before and during the pandemic, p < 0.001.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the safety, well-being, QOL, and training of the global orthopedic resident physician workforce to different extents across geographical regions. The findings of this study will aid educators, program leaderships, and policy makers globally in formulating flexible, generalizable, and sustainable strategies to ensure resident safety, well-being, and training, while maintaining patient care.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody status amongst healthcare workers (HCWs) working through the first wave of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in 2020. To examine the association of seroprevalence and self-reported COVID-19 symptoms with occupation, sex, and ethnicity; and how these factors were associated with physical and mental wellbeing.DesignSingle-centre cohort study.SettingLarge public hospital in the United Kingdom.InterventionAll HCWs who had been tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin (Ig) G nucleocapsid antibody in summer 2020 were asked to complete an electronic survey focusing on their physical and mental health in Winter 2020-21. This survey was comprised of the Short Form 12v2, Physical Component Summary (PCS), Mental Component Summary (MCS), and Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) questionnaires.Results7604/9781 (77.7%) HCWs were antibody tested, of which 1082 completed the full survey. Antibody testing was conducted between 17/06/20-30/07/20, during which time our seroprevalence rate was 28% (299/1082). Of those self-reporting COVID-19 symptoms, 51% (201/395) were antibody positive. Antibody-positive participants had lower PCS scores (p = 0.016), indicating poorer physical health. Lower PCS scores were also found in those deemed high risk for COVID-19 by their GP (p = 0.001), and those aged >44 years (p = 0.009). Antibody-negative participants had lower MCS scores (p = 0.044), indicating poorer mental health. Those who self-reported COVID-19 symptoms had lower PCS scores (p=<0.001) than those with no symptoms. Lower MCS scores were found in women (p = 0.001), Caucasians (p = 0.018), non-clinicians (p = 0.001), and those aged <44 years (p = 0.009). Significantly higher GAD-7 anxiety scores were evident in staff aged <44 years (p = 0.023), and those with self-reported COVID symptoms (p = 0.031). Doctors had lower GAD-7 anxiety scores (p = 0.009).ConclusionSelf-reported symptoms did not correlate with seroprevalence; data surrounding this can be useful for future workforce planning. Interventions are needed to reduce the mental and physical burden of the pandemic on HCWs. Further work is needed to identify which particular HCWs may require further support, to ensure well-being and effective patient care.Trial registrationSponsor Protocol number - 2020COV112, Clinicaltrials.gov number -NCT04527432.

Project description:IntroductionClinical research within Paediatric Intensive Care (PICU) is necessary to reduce morbidity and mortality associated within this resource-intensive environment. With UK PICUs encouraged to be research-active there was a drive to understand how centres support research delivery.AimTo identify the research workforce available within UK/Ireland PICUs to support clinical research delivery.MethodAn electronic survey, endorsed by the Paediatric Critical Care Society (PCCS), was designed and reported in accordance with CHERRIES guidelines. The survey was distributed by email to all UK/Ireland Nurse Managers and Medical/ Nursing Research leads, aiming for one response per site during the period of April-June 2021. Only one response per site was included in analysis.Results44 responses were received, representing 24/30 UK/Ireland sites (80% response rate). Responses from n = 21/30 units are included (three excluded for insufficient data). 90% (n = 19/21) units were research active, although only 52% (n = 11) had permanent research roles funded within their staffing establishment. The majority of units (n = 18, 86%) had less than two WTE research nurses. Resources were felt to be sufficient for current research delivery by 43% of units (n = 9), but this confidence diminished to 19% (n = 4) when considering their ability to support future research. The top barriers to research conduct were insufficiently funded/unfunded studies (52%; n = 11), clinical staff too busy to support research activity (52%; n = 11) and short-term/fixed-term contracts for research staff (38%; n = 8).ConclusionDespite the perceived importance of research and 90% of responding UK/Ireland PICUs being research active, the majority have limited resources to support research delivery. This has implications for their ability to participate in future multi-centre trials and opportunities to support the development of future medical/nursing clinical academics. Further work is required to identify optimum models of clinical research delivery.

Project description:ObjectivesTo describe the extent to which local guidelines for admission to UK midwifery units align with national guidance; to describe variation in individual admission criteria; and to describe the extent to which alongside midwifery units (AMUs) are the default option for eligible women.DesignNational cross-sectional survey.SettingAll 122 UK maternity services with midwifery units, between October 2018 and February 2019.Outcome measuresAlignment of local admission guidelines with national guidance (NICE CG190); frequency and nature of variation in individual admission criteria; percentage of services with AMU as default birth setting for eligible women.ResultsAdmission guidelines were received from 87 maternity services (71%), representing 153 units, and we analysed 85 individual guideline documents. Overall, 92% of local admission guidelines varied from national guidance; 76% contained both some admission criteria that were 'more inclusive' and some that were 'more restrictive' than national guidance. The most common 'more inclusive' admission criteria, occurring in 40-80% of guidelines, were: explicit admission of women with parity ≥4; aged 35-40yrs; with a BMI 30-35kg/m2; selective admission of women with a BMI 35-40kg/m2; Group B Streptococcus carriers; and those undergoing induction of labour. The most common 'more restrictive' admission criteria, occurring in around 30% of guidelines, excluded women who: declined blood products; had experienced female genital cutting; were aged <16yrs; or had not attended for regular antenatal care. Over half of services (59%) reported the AMU as the default option for healthy women with straightforward pregnancies.ConclusionsThe variation in local midwifery unit admission criteria found in this study represents a potentially confusing and inequitable basis for women making choices about planned place of birth. A review of national guidance may be indicated and where a lack of relevant evidence underlies variation in admission criteria, further research by planned place of birth is required.

Project description:During the first COVID-19 pandemic wave (1st CoPW), nursing homes (NHs) experienced a high rate of COVID-19 infection and death. Residents who survived the COVID-19 infection may have become frailer. This study aimed to determine the predictive value of having a COVID-19 infection during the 1st CoPW for 2-year mortality in NH residents. This was a retrospective study conducted in three NHs. Residents who had survived the 1st CoPW (March to May 2020) were included. The diagnosis of COVID-19 was based on the results of a positive reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction test. The collected data also included age, sex, length of residence in the NH, disability status, legal guardianship status, nutritional status, need for texture-modified food, hospitalization or Emergency Department visits during lockdown and SARS-COV2 vaccination status during the follow-up. Non-adjusted and adjusted Cox models were used to analyse factors associated with 2-year post-1st CoPW mortality. Among the 315 CoPW1 survivors (72% female, mean age 88 years, 48% with severe disability), 35% presented with COVID-19. Having a history of COVID-19 was not associated with 2-year mortality: hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval] = 0.96 [0.81-1.13], p = 0.62. The factors independently associated with 2-year mortality were older age (for each additional year, HR = 1.05 [1.03-1.08], p < 0.01), severe disability vs. moderate or no disability (HR = 1.35 [1.12-1.63], p < 0.01) and severe malnutrition vs. no malnutrition (HR = 1.29 [1.04-1.60], p = 0.02). Considering that vaccination campaign started during the follow-up, mortality was associated with severe malnutrition before and severe disability after the start of the campaign. Vaccination was independently associated with better survival (HR 0.71 [0.55-0.93], p = 0.02). Having survived a COVID-19 infection during the 1st CoPW did not affect subsequent 2-year survival in older adults living in NHs. Severe malnutrition and disability remained strong predictor of mortality in this population, whereas vaccination was associated to better survival.