ABSTRACT
Background This study analyses how healthcare workers (HCWs) perceived risks, protection and preventive measures during the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to medically approved risks and organisational measures. We aim to explore ‘blind spots’ of pandemic protection and identify mental health needs. Methods A German multi-method hospital study at Hannover Medical School serves as an ‘optimal-case’ scenario of a high-income country, well-resourced hospital sector and an organisation with low HCW infection rate serves to explore governance gaps in HCW protection. Document analysis, expert information and survey data (n = 1163) were collected as part of a clinical study into SARS-CoV-2 serology testing during the second wave of the pandemic (November 2020-February 2021). Selected survey items included perceptions of risks, protection and preventive measures. Descriptive statistical analysis and regression were undertaken for gender, profession and COVID-19 patient care. Results Our study reveals a low risk of 1% medically approved infections among participants, but a much higher mean personal risk estimate of 15%. The majority (68.4%) expressed ‘some’ to ‘very strong’ fear of acquiring infection at the workplace. Individual protective behaviour and compliance with protective workplace measures were estimated as very high. Yet only about half of the respondents felt strongly protected by the employer;12% even perceived ‘no’ or ‘little’ protection. Gender and contact with COVID-19 patients had no significant effect on the estimations of infection risks and protective workplace behaviour, but nursing was correlated with higher levels of personal risk estimations and fear of infection. Conclusions A strong mismatch between low medically approved risk and personal risk perceptions of HCWs brings stressors and threats into view, that may be preventable through improved information, risk communication and inclusion of mental health support in pandemic preparedness. Key messages • Healthcare workers’ perceptions of COVID-19 infection risks are much higher than medically approved infection risk. • Pandemic preparedness and protection plans must pay greater attention to information, risk communication and mental health needs.
ABSTRACT
Background: Use of telemedicine in Germany has increased due to the COVID-19 lockdown. Between March and May 2020, government restrictions led to cancellation of routine outpatient appointments to limit viral spread and optimize resources. Objectives: This study assesses patient satisfaction of follow-up telemedicine appointments among patients known to be in disease remission, attending either secondary or tertiary care Rheumatology clinics. Appointments were conducted either by a rheumatologist or a qualified medical assistant for rheumatology (RFA). Additional data regarding perceived concerns arising from the COVID-19 pandemic as well as attitudes to vaccination were collected. Methods: Methods: Patients not requiring adjustment of their DMARDs at the two previous attendances were considered stable. At cancellation of the planned attendance, patients were offered participation in the study and provided verbal informed consent. Participants were randomized to a telemedicine appointment by either a physician or RFA. Telemedicine appointments consisted of a standardized patient interview, including assessment of disease activity (modified CDAI score), attitudes to vaccination as well as current vaccine status and concerns about COVID-19. Following participation, all patients received a pseudonymized postal questionnaire to evaluate appointment satisfaction (FAPI-Score). Results: In total 112/116 (96%) patients that were offered appointments, participated in the study (RA 50%, axSpA 30%, PsA 20%). Of these 88/112 (79%) returned their postal questionnaires. Overall patient satisfaction was excellent (mean 4.3/5 modified FAPI score) and did not differ between care setting or clinical status of the interviewer. RFAs conducted 19/112 (17%) of appointments, 6 (32%) of which required additional physician intervention. Change of DMARDs occurred in 19/112 (17%) appointments. Patients reporting a pain score ≥7 (VAS 1-10) were most dissatisfied with the telemedicine appointment (p=0.036). Concerns about COVID-19 correlated with disease activity: high disease activity (p = 0.031), presence of tender joints (p=0.001), high pain levels (p=0.009) correlated with concern of contracting COVID-19 or experiencing severe disease course. Only 38% of the patients had been vaccinated against pneumococci in the past 5 years and 54% had been vaccinated against influenza in 2019/2020. Conclusion: Telemedicine can contribute to patient care in stable patients. RFAs can also contribute to patient care especially for follow-up appointment when patients are in remission. Vaccination rates and motivation needs to be improved as influenza and pneumococcal vaccination is recommended to all patients with rheumatic diseases without contraindications.