Moral distress, emotional impact and coping in intensive care unit staff during the outbreak of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: From the beginning, the COVID-19 pandemic increased ICU workloads and created exceptionally difficult ethical dilemmas. ICU staff around the world have been subject to high levels of moral stress, potentially leading to mental health problems. There is only limited evidence on moral distress levels and coping styles among Spanish ICU staff, and how they influenced health professionals' mental health during the pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To assess moral distress, related mental health problems (anxiety and depression), and coping styles among ICU staff during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: The study setting consisted of intensive care unit and areas converted into intensive care units in public and private hospitals. A total of 434 permanent and temporary intensive care staff (reassigned due to the pandemic from other departments to units) answered an online questionnaire between March and June 2020. METHODS: Sociodemographic and job variables, moral distress, anxiety, depression, and coping mechanisms were anonymously evaluated through a self-reported questionnaire. Descriptive and correlation analyses were conducted and multivariate linear regression models were developed to explore the predictive ability of moral distress and coping on anxiety and depression. RESULTS: Moral distress during the pandemic is determined by situations related to the patient and family, the intensive care unit, and resource management of the organisations themselves. intensive care unit staff already reached moderate levels of moral distress, anxiety, and depression during the first wave of the pandemic. Temporary staff (redeployed from other units) obtained higher scores in these variables (p = 0.04, p = 0.038, and p = 0.009, respectively) than permanent staff, as well as in greater intention to leave their current position (p = 0.03). This intention was also stronger in health staff working in areas converted into intensive care units (45.2%) than in normal intensive care units (40.2%) (p = 0.02). Moral distress, coupled with primarily avoidance-oriented coping styles, explains 37% (AdR2) of the variance in anxiety and 38% (AdR2) of the variance in depression. CONCLUSIONS: Our study reveals that the emotional well-being of intensive care unit staff was already at risk during the first wave of the pandemic. The moral distress they experienced was related to anxiety and depression issues, as well as the desire to leave the profession, and should be addressed, not only in permanent staff, but also in temporary staff, redeployed to these units as reinforcement workers.

Psychological crisis and emergency intervention for frontline critical care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

AIM: To explore the main feelings and coping strategies among frontline critical care workers during the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and to evaluate the level of satisfaction after a psychological crisis and emergency intervention. BACKGROUND: The health crisis brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed critical care workers to an intense physical and emotional burden. Scientific research recommends psychological crisis and emergency interventions during the acute phase to help cope with the situation and prevent emotional side effects. DESIGN: A multicentre descriptive study with mixed qualitative and quantitative data was developed. METHODS: Healthcare and non-healthcare critical care workers from 16 hospitals were included. Psychological crisis assistance was given (for individuals and groups), both face-to-face and online, with 18 psychologists for two months. Content analysis from the psychologists' session reports after each intervention was performed (COREQ). Satisfaction with the intervention was assessed with an 'ad hoc' 21-item online survey. RESULTS: A total of 553 interventions were carried out (361 individually and 192 in groups). Four themes were identified: 1-Imbalance between occupational demands and resources; 2-Acute stress responses; 3-Personal and professional consequences; and 4-Protection factors. The main protection factor identified was group cohesion and perceived social support. The mean general satisfaction with the intervention was high and 96.2% (n=252) of the participants would recommend it in future. CONCLUSIONS: A psychological crisis and emergency intervention helped critical care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic to verbalise and integrate the situation, providing strategies to cope with the experience with a high level of satisfaction from the participants assisted. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, support groups guided by psychologists fostered reflection on aspects related to work, interaction with patients and relatives and social support from workmates that help them for coping with stress, share emotions and experiences and feel understood.