Dataset Information

International professional practices in mental health, organization of psychiatric care, and COVID-19: A survey protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Our project aims to provide: an overview of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the field of mental health professionals in 23 countries;a model of recommendations for good practice and proposals for methods and digital tools to improve the well-being at work of mental health professionals and the quality of services offered during crisis and post-crisis periods;an in-depth ethics review of the assessment of the use of numerical tools for psychiatry professionals and patient support, including teleconsulting.

Methods

This is a large international survey conducted among 2,000 mental health professionals in 23 countries over a 12-month period. This survey will be based on 30 individual interviews and 20 focus group sessions, and a digital questionnaire will be sent online to 2,000 professionals based on the criteria of gender, age, professional experience, psychiatric specialty, context of work in psychiatry, and geographical location. Regarding the development of telepsychiatry during the COVID-19 pandemic, a pilot study on the use of digital tools will be carried out on 100 clients of psychiatry professionals in France and Belgium.

Discussion-conclusion

This study will contribute to the co-construction of an international organization and monitoring system that takes into account psychiatric health professionals as major resources to fight against the COVID-19 pandemic and to develop efficient processes for preparing and anticipating crises by reducing psychosocial risks as much as possible. This project also aims to design tools for remote medicine and to develop the use of numerical tools for monitoring and supporting professionals and helping professionals to build the conditions for satisfactory operational work during crises and post-crisis situations, using adapted organizational methods. Our ongoing research should support professionals in the search for existing concrete solutions to cope with emergency work situations while maintaining an optimal quality of life.

SUBMITTER: Fond-Harmant L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8714114 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective: To describe the utility and patterns of COVID-19 simulation scenarios across different international healthcare centers. Methods: This is a cross-sectional, international survey for multiple simulation centers team members, including team-leaders and healthcare workers (HCWs), based on each center's debriefing reports from 30 countries in all WHO regions. The main outcome measures were the COVID-19 simulations characteristics, facilitators, obstacles, and challenges encountered during the simulation sessions. Results: Invitation was sent to 343 simulation team leaders and multidisciplinary HCWs who responded; 121 completed the survey. The frequency of simulation sessions was monthly (27.1%), weekly (24.8%), twice weekly (19.8%), or daily (21.5%). Regarding the themes of the simulation sessions, they were COVID-19 patient arrival to ER (69.4%), COVID-19 patient intubation due to respiratory failure (66.1%), COVID-19 patient requiring CPR (53.7%), COVID-19 transport inside the hospital (53.7%), COVID-19 elective intubation in OR (37.2%), or Delivery of COVID-19 mother and neonatal care (19%). Among participants, 55.6% reported the team's full engagement in the simulation sessions. The average session length was 30-60 min. The debriefing process was conducted by the ICU facilitator in (51%) of the sessions followed by simulation staff in 41% of the sessions. A total of 80% reported significant improvement in clinical preparedness after simulation sessions, and 70% were satisfied with the COVID-19 sessions. Most perceived issues reported were related to infection control measures, followed by team dynamics, logistics, and patient transport issues. Conclusion: Simulation centers team leaders and HCWs reported positive feedback on COVID-19 simulation sessions with multidisciplinary personnel involvement. These drills are a valuable tool for rehearsing safe dynamics on the frontline of COVID-19. More research on COVID-19 simulation outcomes is warranted; to explore variable factors for each country and healthcare system.

Project description:BackgroundRecent epidemiological data indicate that minority groups, especially Hispanic communities, experience higher rates of infection, hospitalization, and death due to COVID-19. It is important to understand the nature of this health disparity and the socioeconomic or behavioral factors that are placing Hispanic communities and other minority populations at higher risk for morbidity and mortality.ObjectiveThe purpose of this project is to assess current COVID-19-related knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) among a predominantly Hispanic population from Orange County, California, and identify risk factors that may contribute to increased susceptibility and vulnerability to contracting SARS-CoV-2.MethodsOur Orange County-wide community survey consists of quantitative survey questions in four domains: demographic information, COVID-19 knowledge questions, COVID-19 attitude questions, and COVID-19 practices questions. The survey questions are adapted from recent global KAP studies. Participants are being recruited from Amistad Medical Clinic, a private primary health clinic group in Orange County that treats a predominantly Hispanic population. Patients recruited during telehealth visits are surveyed remotely by telephone, and those recruited during in-person clinic visits are surveyed in person. Surveys are conducted by trained members of the study team who are native to the community setting.ResultsAs of October 12, 2020, we had recruited and enrolled 327 participants. Data collection occurred June 26th to October 30th. Data analysis is ongoing.ConclusionsVery few current COVID-19 studies focus on the perspective and experience of minority populations. Because Hispanic communities are disproportionately affected by COVID-19, it is important to understand the factors the contribute to this disparity and the next steps that should be taken to reduce the COVID-19 burden in this population. We believe that our study model of partnering with a local clinic system that serves our study population can be expanded to other settings to compare COVID-19 KAP and associated factors within different minority communities.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/25265.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has strained the healthcare systems across the world but its impact on acute stroke care is just being elucidated. We hypothesized a major global impact of COVID-19 not only on stroke volumes but also on various aspects of thrombectomy systems.AimsWe conducted a convenience electronic survey with a 21-item questionnaire aimed to identify the changes in stroke admission volumes and thrombectomy treatment practices seen during a specified time period of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThe survey was designed using Qualtrics software and sent to stroke and neuro-interventional physicians around the world who are part of the Global Executive Committee (GEC) of Mission Thrombectomy 2020, a global coalition under the aegis of Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology, between April 5th and May 15th, 2020.ResultsThere were 113 responses to the survey across 25 countries with a response rate of 31% among the GEC members. Globally there was a median 33% decrease in stroke admissions and a 25% decrease in mechanical thrombectomy (MT) procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic period until May 15th, 2020 compared to pre-pandemic months. The intubation policy for MT procedures during the pandemic was highly variable across participating centers: 44% preferred intubating all patients, including 25% of centers that changed their policy to preferred-intubation (PI) from preferred non-intubation (PNI). On the other hand, 56% centers preferred not intubating patients undergoing MT, which included 27% centers that changed their policy from PI to PNI. There was no significant difference in rate of COVID-19 infection between PI versus PNI centers (p=0.60) or if intubation policy was changed in either direction (p=1.00). Low-volume (<10 stroke/month) compared with high-volume stroke centers (>20 strokes/month) were less likely to have neurointerventional suite specific written personal protective equipment protocols (74% vs 88%) and if present, these centers were more likely to report them to be inadequate (58% vs 92%).ConclusionOur data provides a comprehensive snapshot of the impact on acute stroke care observed worldwide during the pandemic. Overall, respondents reported decreased stroke admissions as well as decreased cases of MT with no clear preponderance in intubation policy during MT.Data access statementThe corresponding author will consider requests for sharing survey data. The study was exempt from institutional review board approval as it did not involve patient level data.