Mental health and wellbeing of health and aged care workers in Australia, May 2021 - June 2022: a longitudinal cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the mental health and wellbeing of health and aged care workers in Australia during the second and third years of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, overall and by occupation group. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Longitudinal cohort study of health and aged care workers (ambulance, hospitals, primary care, residential aged care) in Victoria: May-July 2021 (survey 1), October-December 2021 (survey 2), and May-June 2022 (survey 3). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportions of respondents (adjusted for age, gender, socio-economic status) reporting moderate to severe symptoms of depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9, PHQ-9), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale, GAD-7), or post-traumatic stress (Impact of Event Scale-6, IES-6), burnout (abbreviated Maslach Burnout Inventory, aMBI), or high optimism (10-point visual analogue scale); mean scores (adjusted for age, gender, socio-economic status) for wellbeing (Personal Wellbeing Index-Adult, PWI-A) and resilience (Connor Davidson Resilience Scale 2, CD-RISC-2). RESULTS: A total of 1667 people responded to at least one survey (survey 1, 989; survey 2, 1153; survey 3, 993; response rate, 3.3%). Overall, 1211 survey responses were from women (72.6%); most respondents were hospital workers (1289, 77.3%) or ambulance staff (315, 18.9%). The adjusted proportions of respondents who reported moderate to severe symptoms of depression (survey 1, 16.4%; survey 2, 22.6%; survey 3, 19.2%), anxiety (survey 1, 8.8%; survey 2, 16.0%; survey 3, 11.0%), or post-traumatic stress (survey 1, 14.6%; survey 2, 35.1%; survey 3, 14.9%) were each largest for survey 2. The adjusted proportions of participants who reported moderate to severe symptoms of burnout were higher in surveys 2 and 3 than in survey 1, and the proportions who reported high optimism were smaller in surveys 2 and 3 than in survey 1. Adjusted mean scores for wellbeing and resilience were similar at surveys 2 and 3 and lower than at survey 1. The magnitude but not the patterns of change differed by occupation group. CONCLUSION: Burnout was more frequently reported and mean wellbeing and resilience scores were lower in mid-2022 than in mid-2021 for Victorian health and aged care workers who participated in our study. Evidence-based mental health and wellbeing programs for workers in health care organisations are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12621000533897 (observational study; retrospective).

Prognostic factors associated with mortality among patients receiving venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) can be considered for patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who continue to deteriorate despite evidence-based therapies and lung-protective ventilation. The Extracorporeal Life Support Organization has emphasised the importance of patient selection; however, to better inform these decisions, a comprehensive and evidence-based understanding of the risk factors associated with poor outcomes is necessary. We aimed to summarise the association between pre-cannulation prognostic factors and risk of mortality in adult patients requiring venovenous ECMO for the treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE and Embase from Dec 1, 2019, to April 14, 2022, for randomised controlled trials and observational studies involving adult patients who required ECMO for COVID-19-associated ARDS and for whom pre-cannulation prognostic factors associated with in-hospital mortality were evaluated. We conducted separate meta-analyses of unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (uORs), adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs), and mean differences, and excluded studies if these data could not be extracted. We assessed the risk of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Our protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework registry, osf.io/6gcy2. FINDINGS: Our search identified 2888 studies, of which 42 observational cohort studies involving 17 449 patients were included. Factors that had moderate or high certainty of association with increased mortality included patient factors, such as older age (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2·27 [95% CI 1·63-3·16]), male sex (unadjusted odds ratio [uOR] 1·34 [1·20-1·49]), and chronic lung disease (aHR 1·55 [1·20-2·00]); pre-cannulation disease factors, such as longer duration of symptoms (mean difference 1·51 days [95% CI 0·36-2·65]), longer duration of invasive mechanical ventilation (uOR 1·94 [1·40-2·67]), higher partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (mean difference 4·04 mm Hg [1·64-6·44]), and higher driving pressure (aHR 2·36 [1·40-3·97]); and centre factors, such as less previous experience with ECMO (aOR 2·27 [1·28-4·05]. INTERPRETATION: The prognostic factors identified highlight the importance of patient selection, the effect of injurious lung ventilation, and the potential opportunity for greater centralisation and collaboration in the use of ECMO for the treatment of COVID-19-associated ARDS. These factors should be carefully considered as part of a risk stratification framework when evaluating a patient for potential treatment with venovenous ECMO. FUNDING: None.

Organizational responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Victoria, Australia: A qualitative study across four healthcare settings

Objective Organizational responses that support healthcare workers (HCWs) and mitigate health risks are necessary to offset the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to understand how HCWs and key personnel working in healthcare settings in Melbourne, Australia perceived their employing organizations' responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Method In this qualitative study, conducted May-July 2021 as part of the longitudinal Coronavirus in Victorian Healthcare and Aged Care Workers (COVIC-HA) study, we purposively sampled and interviewed HCWs and key personnel from healthcare organizations across hospital, ambulance, aged care and primary care (general practice) settings. We also examined HCWs' free-text responses to a question about organizational resources and/or supports from the COVIC-HA Study's baseline survey. We thematically analyzed data using an iterative process. Results We analyzed data from interviews with 28 HCWs and 21 key personnel and free-text responses from 365 HCWs, yielding three major themes: navigating a changing and uncertain environment, maintaining service delivery during a pandemic, and meeting the safety and psychological needs of staff . HCWs valued organizational efforts to engage openly and honesty with staff, and proactive responses such as strategies to enhance workplace safety (e.g., personal protective equipment spotters). Suggestions for improvement identified in the themes included streamlined information processes, greater involvement of HCWs in decision-making, increased investment in staff wellbeing initiatives and sustainable approaches to strengthen the healthcare workforce. Conclusions This study provides in-depth insights into the challenges and successes of organizational responses across four healthcare settings in the uncertain environment of a pandemic. Future efforts to mitigate the impact of acute stressors on HCWs should include a strong focus on bidirectional communication, effective and realistic strategies to strengthen and sustain the healthcare workforce, and greater investment in flexible and meaningful psychological support and wellbeing initiatives for HCWs.

Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with acute covid-19 associated respiratory failure: comparative effectiveness study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) compared with conventional mechanical ventilation on outcomes of patients with covid-19 associated respiratory failure. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: 30 countries across five continents, 3 January 2020 to 29 August 2021. PARTICIPANTS: 7345 adults admitted to the intensive care unit with clinically suspected or laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. INTERVENTIONS: ECMO in patients with a partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratio <80 mm Hg compared with conventional mechanical ventilation without ECMO. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was hospital mortality within 60 days of admission to the intensive care unit. Adherence adjusted estimates were calculated using marginal structural models with inverse probability weighting, accounting for competing events and for baseline and time varying confounding. RESULTS: 844 of 7345 eligible patients (11.5%) received ECMO at any time point during follow-up. Adherence adjusted mortality was 26.0% (95% confidence interval 24.5% to 27.5%) for a treatment strategy that included ECMO if the PaO2/FiO2 ratio decreased <80 mm Hg compared with 33.2% (31.8% to 34.6%) had patients received conventional treatment without ECMO (risk difference -7.1%, 95% confidence interval -8.2% to -6.1%; risk ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.75 to 0.82). In secondary analyses, ECMO was most effective in patients aged <65 years and with a PaO2/FiO2 <80 mm Hg or with driving pressures >15 cmH2O during the first 10 days of mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: ECMO was associated with a reduction in mortality in selected adults with covid-19 associated respiratory failure. Age, severity of hypoxaemia, and duration and intensity of mechanical ventilation were found to be modifiers of treatment effectiveness and should be considered when deciding to initiate ECMO in patients with covid-19.

Comparison of 6-Month Outcomes of Survivors of COVID-19 versus Non-COVID-19 Critical Illness.

Rationale: The outcomes of survivors of critical illness due to coronavirus disease (COVID-19) compared with non-COVID-19 are yet to be established. Objectives: We aimed to investigate new disability at 6 months in mechanically ventilated patients admitted to Australian ICUs with COVID-19 compared with non-COVID-19. Methods: We included critically ill patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 from two prospective observational studies. Patients were eligible if they were adult (age ⩾ 8 yr) and received ⩾24 hours of mechanical ventilation. In addition, patients with COVID-19 were eligible with a positive laboratory PCR test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Measurements and Main Results: Demographic, intervention, and hospital outcome data were obtained from electronic medical records. Survivors were contacted by telephone for functional outcomes with trained outcome assessors using the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. Between March 6, 2020, and April 21, 2021, 120 critically ill patients with COVID-19, and between August 2017 and January 2019, 199 critically ill patients without COVID-19, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Patients with COVID-19 were older (median [interquartile range], 62 [55-71] vs. 58 [44-69] yr; P = 0.019) with a lower Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (17 [13-20] vs. 19 [15-23]; P = 0.011). Although duration of ventilation was longer in patients with COVID-19 than in those without COVID-19 (12 [5-19] vs. 4.8 [2.3-8.8] d; P < 0.001), 180-day mortality was similar between the groups (39/120 [32.5%] vs. 70/199 [35.2%]; P = 0.715). The incidence of death or new disability at 180 days was similar (58/93 [62.4%] vs. 99/150 [66/0%]; P = 0.583). Conclusions: At 6 months, there was no difference in new disability for patients requiring mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 compared with non-COVID-19. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04401254).

The impact of COVID-19 critical illness on new disability, functional outcomes and return to work at 6 months: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There are few reports of new functional impairment following critical illness from COVID-19. We aimed to describe the incidence of death or new disability, functional impairment and changes in health-related quality of life of patients after COVID-19 critical illness at 6 months. METHODS: In a nationally representative, multicenter, prospective cohort study of COVID-19 critical illness, we determined the prevalence of death or new disability at 6 months, the primary outcome. We measured mortality, new disability and return to work with changes in the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 12L (WHODAS) and health status with the EQ5D-5LTM. RESULTS: Of 274 eligible patients, 212 were enrolled from 30 hospitals. The median age was 61 (51-70) years, and 124 (58.5%) patients were male. At 6 months, 43/160 (26.9%) patients died and 42/108 (38.9%) responding survivors reported new disability. Compared to pre-illness, the WHODAS percentage score worsened (mean difference (MD), 10.40% [95% CI 7.06-13.77]; p < 0.001). Thirteen (11.4%) survivors had not returned to work due to poor health. There was a decrease in the EQ-5D-5LTM utility score (MD, - 0.19 [- 0.28 to - 0.10]; p < 0.001). At 6 months, 82 of 115 (71.3%) patients reported persistent symptoms. The independent predictors of death or new disability were higher severity of illness and increased frailty. CONCLUSIONS: At six months after COVID-19 critical illness, death and new disability was substantial. Over a third of survivors had new disability, which was widespread across all areas of functioning. Clinical trial registration NCT04401254 May 26, 2020.