Will we ever be the same again? The mental health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health care staff and institutions.

As a group, health care workers (HCWs) were vulnerable to poor mental health (MH) prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. The added burdens of COVID-19 have put extra stressors on the health system and its most precious resource-its workers. This pandemic has exacerbated already poor MH in HCWs, leading to a workforce that is burnt out and struggling to cope with growing demands. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, risk factors for poor HCW mental health have been identified. The changes in practices brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic and identified as risk factors for poor MH that were experienced in other areas of health care and medical establishments were also witnessed by HCWs working in cytology. Indeed, all health care staff have been affected by this pandemic, and we now know that MH problems in HCWs are negatively impacting the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath as they adversely influence quality of care. The question is then rightfully asked: Will we, as health care staff working in medical establishments, ever be the same again, or has COVID-19 forever changed our working lives? Fortunately, protective factors and multi-level interventions associated with adaptive MH outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic have also been identified. In this article, we conclude that whilst working life is unlikely to return to pre-pandemic practices, the health care system now has an opportunity to promote individual and systemic growth by adhering to the principles that protect HCWs' MH and mitigate burnout during these challenging times.

Cohort profile: Netherlands Longitudinal Study on Hearing (NL-SH).

PURPOSE: The Netherlands Longitudinal Study on Hearing (NL-SH) was set up to examine associations of hearing ability with psychosocial, work and health outcomes in working age adults. PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion started in 2006 and is ongoing. Currently the sample comprises 2800 adults with normal and impaired hearing, aged 18-70 years at inclusion. Five-year follow-up started in 2011, 10-year follow-up in 2016 and 15-year follow-up in 2021. All measurements are web-based. Participants perform a speech-in-noise recognition test to measure hearing ability and fill out questionnaires about their hearing status, hearing aid use, self-reported hearing disability and coping, work status and work-related outcomes (work performance, need for recovery), physical and psychosocial health (depression, anxiety, distress, somatisation, loneliness), healthcare usage, lifestyle (smoking, alcohol), and technology use. FINDINGS TO DATE: The NL-SH has shown the vast implications of reduced hearing ability for the quality of life and health of working-age adults. A selection of results published in 27 papers is presented. Age-related deterioration of hearing ability accelerates after the age of 50 years. Having a history of smoking is associated with a faster decline in hearing ability, but this relationship is not found for other cardiovascular risk factors. Poorer hearing ability is associated with increased distress, somatisation, depression and loneliness. Adults with impaired hearing ability are more likely to be unemployed or unfit for work, and need more time to recuperate from work effort. FUTURE PLANS: Participant data will be linked to a national database to enable research on the association between hearing ability and mortality. Linking to environmental exposure data will facilitate insight in relations between environmental factors, hearing ability and psychosocial outcomes. The unique breadth of the NL-SH data will also allow for further research on other functional problems, for instance, hearing ability and fall risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL12015.029.06.

[18F]FDG-PET/CT in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients with COVID-19 ARDS and persistent inflammation.

Purpose: We report the findings of four critically ill patients who underwent an [18F]FDG-PET/CT because of persistent inflammation during the late phase of their COVID-19. Methods: Four mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 were retrospectively discussed in a research group to evaluate the added value of [18F]FDG-PET/CT. Results: Although pulmonary PET/CT findings differed, bilateral lung anomalies could explain the increased CRP and leukocytes in all patients. This underscores the limited ability of the routine laboratory to discriminate inflammation from secondary infections. Based on PET/CT findings, a secondary infection/inflammatory focus was suspected in two patients (pancreatitis and gastritis). Lymphadenopathy was present in patients with a detectable SARS-CoV-2 viral load. Muscle uptake around the hips or shoulders was observed in all patients, possibly due to the process of heterotopic ossification. Conclusion: This case series illustrates the diagnostic potential of [18F]FDG-PET/CT imaging in critically ill patients with persistent COVID-19 for the identification of other causes of inflammation and demonstrates that this technique can be performed safely in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical care in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused disruption of regular healthcare leading to reduced hospital attendances, repurposing of surgical facilities, and cancellation of cancer screening programmes. This study aimed to determine the impact of COVID-19 on surgical care in the Netherlands. METHODS: A nationwide study was conducted in collaboration with the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing. Eight surgical audits were expanded with items regarding alterations in scheduling and treatment plans. Data on procedures performed in 2020 were compared with those from a historical cohort (2018-2019). Endpoints included total numbers of procedures performed and altered treatment plans. Secondary endpoints included complication, readmission, and mortality rates. RESULTS: Some 12 154 procedures were performed in participating hospitals in 2020, representing a decrease of 13.6 per cent compared with 2018-2019. The largest reduction (29.2 per cent) was for non-cancer procedures during the first COVID-19 wave. Surgical treatment was postponed for 9.6 per cent of patients. Alterations in surgical treatment plans were observed in 1.7 per cent. Time from diagnosis to surgery decreased (to 28 days in 2020, from 34 days in 2019 and 36 days in 2018; P < 0.001). For cancer-related procedures, duration of hospital stay decreased (5 versus 6 days; P < 0.001). Audit-specific complications, readmission, and mortality rates were unchanged, but ICU admissions decreased (16.5 versus 16.8 per cent; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The reduction in the number of surgical operations was greatest for those without cancer. Where surgery was undertaken, it appeared to be delivered safely, with similar complication and mortality rates, fewer admissions to ICU, and a shorter hospital stay.

COVID-19 has had a significant impact on healthcare worldwide. Hospital visits were reduced, operating facilities were used for COVID-19 care, and cancer screening programmes were cancelled. This study describes the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Dutch surgical healthcare in 2020. Patterns of care in terms of changed or delayed treatment are described for patients who had surgery in 2020, compared with those who had surgery in 2018­2019. The study found that mainly non-cancer surgical treatments were cancelled during months with high COVID-19 rates. Outcomes for patients undergoing surgery were similar but with fewer ICU admissions and shorter hospital stay. These data provide no insight into the burden endured by patients who had postponed or cancelled operations.

The mental health of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a narrative review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Mental health (MH) problems among healthcare workers (HCWs) have the potential to impact negatively on the capacity of health systems to respond effectively to COVID-19. A thorough understanding of the factors that degrade or promote the MH of HCWs is needed to design and implement suitable intervention strategies to support the wellbeing of this population. RECENT FINDINGS: MH problems among HCWs were elevated prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Accumulating evidence indicates that this public health crisis has had a disproportionately negative impact on the MH of specialised populations, including HCWs. Literature from prior health pandemics suggests that the adverse effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the MH of HCWs are likely to persist in the aftermath of the public health crisis. Primary and secondary risk factors for adverse MH outcomes have been identified and should be considered when implementing interventions to protect the MH of HCWs. SUMMARY: The MH of HCWs has been negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, which is having a detrimental influence on the public health response to COVID-19. Protecting the MH of HCWs both during and beyond this public health crisis should remain a top priority, with particular emphasis on multifaceted interventions that aim to balance the psychological needs of individual HCWs with organisational-level strategies that could be targeted to promote their wellbeing.

Brief Digital Interventions to Support the Psychological Well-being of NHS Staff During the COVID-19 Pandemic: 3-Arm Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Health and social care staff are at high risk of experiencing adverse mental health (MH) outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Hence, there is a need to prioritize and identify ways to effectively support their psychological well-being (PWB). Compared to traditional psychological interventions, digital psychological interventions are cost-effective treatment options that allow for large-scale dissemination and transcend social distancing, overcome rurality, and minimize clinician time. OBJECTIVE: This study reports MH outcomes of a Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-compliant parallel-arm pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) examining the potential usefulness of an existing and a novel digital psychological intervention aimed at supporting psychological health among National Health Service (NHS) staff working through the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: NHS Highland (NHSH) frontline staff volunteers (N=169) were randomly assigned to the newly developed NHSH Staff Wellbeing Project (NHSWBP), an established digital intervention (My Possible Self [MPS]), or a waitlist (WL) group for 4 weeks. Attempts were made to blind participants to which digital intervention they were allocated. The interventions were fully automated, without any human input or guidance. We measured 5 self-reported psychological outcomes over 3 time points: before (baseline), in the middle of (after 2 weeks), and after treatment (4 weeks). The primary outcomes were anxiety (7-item General Anxiety Disorder), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire), and mental well-being (Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale). The secondary outcomes included mental toughness (Mental Toughness Index) and gratitude (Gratitude Questionnaire-6). RESULTS: Retention rates mid- and postintervention were 77% (n=130) and 63.3% (n=107), respectively. Postintervention, small differences were noted between the WL and the 2 treatment groups on anxiety (vs MPS: Cohen d=0.07, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.33; vs NHSWBP: Cohen d=0.06, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.31), depression (vs MPS: Cohen d=0.37, 95% CI 0.07-0.66; vs NHSWBP: Cohen d=0.18, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.46), and mental well-being (vs MPS: Cohen d=-0.04, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.08; vs NHSWBP: Cohen d=-0.15, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.10). A similar pattern of between-group differences was found for the secondary outcomes. The NHSWBP group generally had larger within-group effects than the other groups and displayed a greater rate of change compared to the other groups on all outcomes, except for gratitude, where the rate of change was greatest for the MPS group. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses provided encouraging results for the use of brief digital psychological interventions in improving PWB among health and social care workers. Future multisite RCTs, with power to reliably detect differences, are needed to determine the efficacy of contextualized interventions relative to existing digital treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN) ISRCTN18107122; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN18107122.

Low antibody titers after second SARSCoV- 2 vaccination in patients with autoimmune hepatitis

Aims/Background Patients with autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) require immunosuppressive treatment, which might impair the immune response to vaccination. In this prospective cohort study, we assessed the humoral immune response of AIH patients to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Methods Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers of 96 consecutive patients with AIH (78 % female, median age 53y, range 19-83y, 34 % with liver cirrhosis) were included 1-6 months after the second SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Vaccination responses were explored for their association with prescribed immunosuppression, comorbidities and laboratory values. These data/findings were compared to 56 healthy controls. Results 93 (97 %) patients achieved a seroconversion with median anti-SARSCoV- 2 titers of 660 BAU/ml (range 20-11400 BAU/ml). A low or no response defined as antibody-titers < 100 BAU/ml was detected in 10 % (N = 10) of the patients, of which all were under immunosuppression (N = 4 azathioprine, 3 prednisone, 2 MMF + prednisone, 1 azathioprine + Tacrolimus). Antibody levels were significantly lower in AIH patients than in healthy controls (1700 BAU/ ml). Interestingly, antibody-titers of AIH patients without immunosuppression (n = 10) were comparably low to AIH patients with immunosuppression. No additional, individual risk factors for impaired response to vaccination could be identified in this cohort. Conclusion Despite high seroconversion rates, AIH patients show a significantly reduced magnitude of the humoral immune response. Therefore, these data suggest that AIH patients should be recommended an early third booster shot in agreement with recent advice by the German STIKO.

The mental health of NHS staff during the COVID-19 pandemic: two-wave Scottish cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Health and social care workers (HSCWs) are at risk of experiencing adverse mental health outcomes (e.g. higher levels of anxiety and depression) because of the COVID-19 pandemic. This can have a detrimental effect on quality of care, the national response to the pandemic and its aftermath. AIMS: A longitudinal design provided follow-up evidence on the mental health (changes in prevalence of disease over time) of NHS staff working at a remote health board in Scotland during the COVID-19 pandemic, and investigated the determinants of mental health outcomes over time. METHOD: A two-wave longitudinal study was conducted from July to September 2020. Participants self-reported levels of depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), anxiety (Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7) and mental well-being (Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale) at baseline and 1.5 months later. RESULTS: The analytic sample of 169 participants, working in community (43%) and hospital (44%) settings, reported substantial levels of depression and anxiety, and low mental well-being at baseline (depression, 30.8%; anxiety, 20.1%; well-being, 31.9%). Although mental health remained mostly constant over time, the proportion of participants meeting the threshold for anxiety increased to 27.2% at follow-up. Multivariable modelling indicated that working with, and disruption because of, COVID-19 were associated with adverse mental health changes over time. CONCLUSIONS: HSCWs working in a remote area with low COVID-19 prevalence reported substantial levels of anxiety and depression, similar to those working in areas with high COVID-19 prevalence. Efforts to support HSCW mental health must remain a priority, and should minimise the adverse effects of working with, and disruption caused by, the COVID-19 pandemic.

Severe acquired hypertriglyceridemia following COVID-19.

Severe hypertriglyceridemia is a major risk factor for acute pancreatitis. In exceptional cases, it is caused by plasma components inhibiting lipoprotein lipase activity. This phenomenon is predominantly associated with autoimmune diseases. Here, we report a case of severe hypertriglyceridemia due to a transient reduction in lipoprotein lipase activity following an episode of COVID-19 in an otherwise healthy 45-year-old woman. The lipoprotein lipase activity of the patient was markedly reduced compared with a healthy control and did recover to 20% of the healthy control's lipoprotein lipase activity 5 months after the COVID-19 episode. Mixing tests substantiated reduced lipolytic capacity in the presence of the patient's plasma at presentation compared with a homozygous lipoprotein lipase-deficient control, which was no longer present at follow-up. Western blotting confirmed that the quantity of lipoprotein lipase was not aberrant. Fibrate treatment and a strict hypolipidemic diet improved the patient's symptoms and triglyceride levels.

The mental health of NHS staff during the COVID-19 pandemic: a two-wave cohort study (preprint)

BackgroundHealth and social care workers(HSCWs) are at risk of experiencing adverse mental health (MH) outcomes (e.g., higher levels of anxiety and depression) as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. This can have a detrimental impact on quality of care, the national response to the pandemic and its aftermath. AimsA longitudinal design provided follow-up evidence on the MH(changes in the prevalence of disease over time) of NHS staff working in a remote health board in Scotland during the COVID-19 pandemic and investigated the determinants of MH outcomes over time. MethodA two-wave longitudinal study was conducted from July to September 2020. Participants self-reported levels of depression(PHQ-9), anxiety(GAD-7), and mental well-being(WEMWBS) at baseline and again 1.5 months later. ResultsThe analytic sample of 169 participants, working in community(43%) and hospital(44%) settings reported substantial levels of probable clinical depression, anxiety and low mental well-being(MWB) at baseline(depression:30.8%, anxiety:20.1%, low-MWB:31.9%). Whilst the MH of participants remained mostly constant over time, the proportion of participants meeting the threshold for clinical anxiety increased to 27.2% at follow-up. Multivariable modelling indicated that working with, and disruption due to COVID-19 were associated with adverse MH changes over time. ConclusionsHSCWs working in a remote area with low COVID-19 prevalence, reported similar levels of substantial anxiety and depression as those working in areas of the UK with high rates of COVID-19 infections. Efforts to support HSCW MH must remain a priority and should minimize the adverse effects of working with, and the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

A rapid review of the impact of COVID-19 on the mental health of healthcare workers: implications for supporting psychological well-being.

BACKGROUND: Health and social care workers (HSCWs) have carried a heavy burden during the COVID-19 crisis and, in the challenge to control the virus, have directly faced its consequences. Supporting their psychological wellbeing continues, therefore, to be a priority. This rapid review was carried out to establish whether there are any identifiable risk factors for adverse mental health outcomes amongst HSCWs during the COVID-19 crisis. METHODS: We undertook a rapid review of the literature following guidelines by the WHO and the Cochrane Collaboration's recommendations. We searched across 14 databases, executing the search at two different time points. We included published, observational and experimental studies that reported the psychological effects on HSCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: The 24 studies included in this review reported data predominantly from China (18 out of 24 included studies) and most sampled urban hospital staff. Our study indicates that COVID-19 has a considerable impact on the psychological wellbeing of front-line hospital staff. Results suggest that nurses may be at higher risk of adverse mental health outcomes during this pandemic, but no studies compare this group with the primary care workforce. Furthermore, no studies investigated the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on social care staff. Other risk factors identified were underlying organic illness, gender (female), concern about family, fear of infection, lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) and close contact with COVID-19. Systemic support, adequate knowledge and resilience were identified as factors protecting against adverse mental health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence to date suggests that female nurses with close contact with COVID-19 patients may have the most to gain from efforts aimed at supporting psychological well-being. However, inconsistencies in findings and a lack of data collected outside of hospital settings, suggest that we should not exclude any groups when addressing psychological well-being in health and social care workers. Whilst psychological interventions aimed at enhancing resilience in the individual may be of benefit, it is evident that to build a resilient workforce, occupational and environmental factors must be addressed. Further research including social care workers and analysis of wider societal structural factors is recommended.

A rapid review of the impact of COVID-19 on the mental health of healthcare workers: implications for supporting psychological well-being (preprint)

BackgroundHealth and social care workers (HSCWs) have carried a heavy burden during the COVID-19 crisis and, in the challenge to control the virus, have directly faced its consequences. Supporting their psychological wellbeing continues, therefore, to be a priority. This rapid review was carried out to establish whether there are any identifiable risk factors for adverse mental health outcomes amongst HSCWs during the COVID-19 crisis. MethodsWe undertook a rapid review of the literature following guidelines by the WHO and the COVID-19 Cochrane Collaboration’s recommendations. We searched across 14 databases, executing the search at two different time points. We included published observational and experimental studies that reported the psychological effects on health and care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. ResultsThe 24 studies included in this review reported data predominantly from China (18 out of 24 included studies) and most sampled urban hospital staff. Our study indicates that COVID-19 has a considerable impact on the psychological wellbeing of front-line hospital staff. Results suggest that nurses may be at higher risk of adverse mental health outcomes during this pandemic, but no studies compare this group with the primary care workforce. Furthermore, no studies investigated the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on social care staff. Other risk factors identified were underlying organic illness, gender (female), concern about family, fear of infection, lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) and close contact with COVID-19. Systemic support, adequate knowledge and resilience were identified as factors protecting against adverse mental health outcomes. ConclusionsThe evidence to date suggests that female nurses with close contact with COVID-19 patients may have the most to gain from efforts aimed at supporting psychological well-being. However, inconsistencies in findings and a lack of data collected outside of hospital settings, suggest that we should not exclude any groups when addressing psychological wellbeing in health and social care workers. Whilst psychological interventions aimed at enhancing resilience in the individual may be of benefit, it is evident that to build a resilient workforce, occupational and environmental factors must be addressed.  Further research including social care workers and analysis of wider societal structural factors is recommended.

Clinical evaluation of five different automated SARS-CoV-2 serology assays in a cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: The global market for SARS-CoV-2-immunoassays is becoming ever more crowded with antibody-tests of various formats, targets and technologies, careful evaluation is crucial for understanding the implications of individual test results. Here, we evaluate the clinical performance of five automated immunoassays on a set of clinical samples. METHODS: Serum/plasma samples of 75 confirmed COVID-19 patients and 320 pre-pandemic serum samples of healthy blood donors were subjected to two IgG and three total antibody SARS-CoV-2-immunoassays. All test setups were automated workflows. RESULTS: Positivity of assays (onset of symptoms > 10 days) ranged between 68.4 % and 81.6 % (Diasorin 68.4 %, Euroimmun 70.3 %, Siemens 73.7 %, Roche 79.0 % and Wantai 81.6 %). All examined assays demonstrated high specificity of >99 % (Euroimmun, Diasorin: 99.1 %, Wantai: 99.4 %) but only two reached levels above 99.5 % (Roche: 99.7 %, Siemens 100 %). Interestingly, there was no overlap in false positive results between the assays. The strongest correlation of quantitative results was observed between the Diasorin and Euroimmun IgG tests (r2 = 0.76). Overall, we observed no difference in the distribution of test results between female and male patients (p-values: 0.18-0.87). A significant difference between severely versus critically ill patients was demonstrated for the Euroimmun, Diasorin, Wantai and Siemens assays (p-values:0.041). CONCLUSION: All assays showed good clinical performance. Our data confirm that orthogonal test strategies as recommended by the CDC can enhance clinical specificity. However, the suboptimal rates of test positivity found at time of hospitalization in this cohort underline the importance of molecular diagnostics to rule out/confirm active infection with SARS-CoV-2.