Dataset Information

A prospective cohort study of the psychological consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on frontline healthcare workers in New York City.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

We sought to describe the course and correlates of psychological distress in frontline healthcare workers (FHCWs) during the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City (NYC).

Methods

A prospective cohort study of FHCWs at the Mount Sinai Hospital was conducted during the initial 2020 surge (T1) and 7 months later (T2). Psychological distress [i.e., positive screen for pandemic-related post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depressive disorder (MDD), and/or generalized anxiety disorder (GAD)], occupational and personal exposures to COVID-19, coping strategies, and psychosocial characteristics were assessed. Four courses of psychological distress response were identified: no/minimal, remitted, persistent, and new-onset. Multinomial logistic regression and relative importance analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with courses of distress.

Results

Of 786 FHCWs, 126 (16.0%) FHCWs had persistent distress; 150 (19.1%) remitted distress; 35 (4.5%) new-onset distress; and 475 (60.4%) no/minimal distress. Relative to FHCWs with no/minimal distress, those with persistent distress reported greater relationship worries [19.8% relative variance explained (RVE)], pre-pandemic burnout (18.7% RVE), lower dispositional optimism (9.8% RVE), less emotional support (8.6% RVE), and feeling less valued by hospital leadership (8.4% RVE). Relative to FHCWs with remitted symptoms, those with persistent distress reported less emotional support (29.7% RVE), fewer years in practice (28.3% RVE), and psychiatric history (23.6% RVE).

Conclusions

One-fifth of FHCWs in our study experienced psychological distress 7 months following the COVID-19 surge in NYC. Pandemic-related worries, pre-pandemic burnout, emotional support, and feeling valued by leaders were linked to persistent distress. Implications for prevention, treatment, and organizational efforts to mitigate distress in FHCWs are discussed.

SUBMITTER: Peccoralo LA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8783588 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo examine the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical trainees (residents and fellows) working at Mount Sinai Hospital (MSH) in New York City (NYC), the initial epicenter of the United States pandemic.MethodThe authors administered a survey to 991 trainees in frontline specialties working at MSH in NYC between April and May 2020. The instrument assessed symptoms of major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, COVID-19-related posttraumatic stress disorder, and burnout. Psychiatric screens were aggregated into 1 composite measure, and meeting criteria on any of the 3 scales was considered a positive screen for psychiatric symptoms. The survey also assessed COVID-19-related exposures, worries, coping strategies, and desired interventions. Multivariable logistic regressions were conducted to identify factors associated with psychiatric symptoms and burnout.ResultsOf the 560 respondents (56.6% response rate), 29.7% screened positive for psychiatric symptoms and 35.8% screened positive for burnout. History of a mental illness, COVID-19-related duties and personal/career worries, and coping by substance use were associated with increased likelihood of screening positive for psychiatric symptoms. Positive emotion-focused coping and feeling valued by supervisors were associated with decreased likelihood. Internal medicine and surgical specialties, a history of mental illness, increased duty hours, duty-related worries, personal/career worries, coping via self-blame and venting, and coping via substance use were associated with higher odds of burnout. Feeling valued by supervisors was associated with decreased burnout odds. The most common crisis-related needs included access to personal protective equipment, food provisions, and financial support.ConclusionsPsychological distress and burnout affected approximately one-third of trainees sampled during the height of the pandemic in NYC. As the pandemic surged beyond NYC, these findings suggest that interventions should include addressing basic needs, promoting leadership affirmation, moderating duty hours, supporting trainees financially, and enhancing mental health support.

Project description:BackgroundData for frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection are limited and whether personal protective equipment (PPE) mitigates this risk is unknown. We evaluated risk for COVID-19 among frontline HCWs compared to the general community and the influence of PPE.MethodsWe performed a prospective cohort study of the general community, including frontline HCWs, who reported information through the COVID Symptom Study smartphone application beginning on March 24 (United Kingdom, U.K.) and March 29 (United States, U.S.) through April 23, 2020. We used Cox proportional hazards modeling to estimate multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) of a positive COVID-19 test.FindingsAmong 2,035,395 community individuals and 99,795 frontline HCWs, we documented 5,545 incident reports of a positive COVID-19 test over 34,435,272 person-days. Compared with the general community, frontline HCWs had an aHR of 11·6 (95% CI: 10·9 to 12·3) for reporting a positive test. The corresponding aHR was 3·40 (95% CI: 3·37 to 3·43) using an inverse probability weighted Cox model adjusting for the likelihood of receiving a test. A symptom-based classifier of predicted COVID-19 yielded similar risk estimates. Compared with HCWs reporting adequate PPE, the aHRs for reporting a positive test were 1·46 (95% CI: 1·21 to 1·76) for those reporting PPE reuse and 1·31 (95% CI: 1·10 to 1·56) for reporting inadequate PPE. Compared with HCWs reporting adequate PPE who did not care for COVID-19 patients, HCWs caring for patients with documented COVID-19 had aHRs for a positive test of 4·83 (95% CI: 3·99 to 5·85) if they had adequate PPE, 5·06 (95% CI: 3·90 to 6·57) for reused PPE, and 5·91 (95% CI: 4·53 to 7·71) for inadequate PPE.InterpretationFrontline HCWs had a significantly increased risk of COVID-19 infection, highest among HCWs who reused PPE or had inadequate access to PPE. However, adequate supplies of PPE did not completely mitigate high-risk exposures.FundingZoe Global Ltd., Wellcome Trust, EPSRC, NIHR, UK Research and Innovation, Alzheimer's Society, NIH, NIOSH, Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness.

Project description:BackgroundNovel virus outbreaks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, may increase psychological distress among frontline workers. Psychological distress may lead to reduced performance, reduced employability or even burnout. In the present study, we assessed experienced psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic from a self-determination theory perspective.MethodsThis mixed-methods study, with repeated measures, used surveys (quantitative data) combined with audio diaries (qualitative data) to assess work-related COVID-19 experiences, psychological need satisfaction and frustration, and psychological distress over time. Forty-six participants (nurses, junior doctors, and consultants) completed 259 surveys and shared 60 audio diaries. Surveys and audio diaries were analysed separately.ResultsQuantitative results indicated that perceived psychological distress during COVID-19 was higher than pre-COVID-19 and fluctuated over time. Need frustration, specifically autonomy and competence, was positively associated with psychological distress, while need satisfaction, especially relatedness, was negatively associated with psychological distress. In the qualitative, thematic analysis, we observed that especially organisational logistics (rostering, work-life balance, and internal communication) frustrated autonomy, and unfamiliarity with COVID-19 frustrated competence. Despite many need frustrating experiences, a strong connection with colleagues and patients were important sources of relatedness support (i.e. need satisfaction) that seemed to mitigate psychological distress.ConclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic resulted in an increase of psychological distress among frontline workers. Both need frustration and need satisfaction explained unique variance of psychological distress, but seemed to originate from different sources. Challenging times require healthcare organisations to better support their professionals by tailored formal and informal support. We propose to address both indirect (e.g. organisation) and direct (e.g. colleagues) elements of the clinical and social environment in order to reduce need frustration and enhance need satisfaction.

Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for psychological support initiatives directed toward frontline healthcare workers, which can be rapidly and sustainably implemented during an infectious disease outbreak. The current case study presents a comprehensive model of psychological support that was implemented at an intensive care unit (ICU) during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The psychological support model aimed at promoting a resilient stress reaction among frontline staff by protecting physical, social, and psychological resources. The initiatives, targeting different groups of workers, included education and training, peer support, psychologist-supervised and unsupervised group sessions, on-boarding for transferred staff, manager support, and individual sessions for workers experiencing strong stress reactions. The results of the process evaluation of this rapid implementation suggest that peer support initiatives as well as daily group sessions were the most appreciated forms of psychological support. Psychologists involved in organizing and providing the support highlighted several aspects of a successful implementation of the support model: offering support during work hours (preferably after shift), positive attitude of line managers that framed support initiatives as a team effort, and involvement of experienced psychologists able to quickly adjust the content of the support according to the current needs. The study also identified two main problems of the current implementation: the lack of efficient planning due to the use of volunteer work and the need for more structural resources on the organizational level to ensure long-term sustainability of the support model and its implementation among all groups of healthcare staff. The current case study highlights the importance of establishing permanent structural resources and routines for psychological support integrated in clinical practice by healthcare organizations to improve both rapid and sustainable response to future crises.