The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Psychiatric Rehabilitation in Residential Facilities: Perspectives of Staff and Residents.

The coronavirus pandemic imposed significant changes in the care of patients in psychiatric residential facilities, especially during lockdown periods. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the pandemic on patients and staff of psychiatric residential facilities (RFs). This cross-sectional survey was conducted between 30 June and 30 July 2021 and involved 31 RFs located in the province of Verona (Italy). In total, 170 staff members and 272 residents participated in this study. Staff showing clinically significant symptoms of anxiety, depression and burnout were, respectively, 7.7%, 14.2% and 6%. Staff were concerned about the risk that COVID-19 infection might spread among residents (67.6%) and that residents could not receive an acceptable service due to service reconfiguration because of the pandemic (50.3%). Residents found it very unpleasant not to be permitted to attend family members (85.3%), and not to be allowed to engage in outdoor activities due to the restrictions (84%). Both staff and residents agree that the main problematic areas for the residents was the interdiction to meet family members or friends and the interdiction to outdoor activities, whereas problems related to the COVID-19 infection were considered by the staff members as more frequently problematic than reported by residents. The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on the rehabilitation care and recovery journeys of the residents of psychiatric RFs. Therefore, sustained, and careful attention is needed to ensure that the rehabilitation needs of people with severe mental disorders are not neglected in time of pandemics. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40737-023-00343-6.

Changes in emergency psychiatric consultations in time of COVID-19: a retrospective observational study in the Verona Academic Hospital over the two pandemic years 2020-2021.

BACKGROUND: During the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, local health authorities in most Italian regions prescribed a reduction of ordinary outpatient and community mental health care. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on access to the emergency departments (ED) for psychiatric consultation in the pandemic years 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019. METHODS: This is a retrospective study conducted by using routinely collected administrative data of the two EDs of the Verona Academic Hospital Trust (Verona, Italy). All ED psychiatry consultations registered from 01.01.2020 to 31.12.2021 were compared with those registered in the pre-pandemic year (01.01.2019 to 31.12.2019). The association between each recorded characteristic and the year considered was estimated by chi-square or Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: A significant reduction was observed between 2020 and 2019 (-23.3%) and between 2021 and 2019 (-16.3%). This reduction was most evident in the lockdown period of 2020 (-40.3%) and in the phase corresponding to the second and third pandemic waves (-36.1%). In 2021, young adults and people with diagnosis of psychosis showed an increase in requests for psychiatric consultation. CONCLUSIONS: Fear of contagion may have been an important factor in the overall reduction in psychiatric consultations. However, psychiatric consultations for people with psychosis and for young adults increased. This finding underlines the need for mental health services to implement alternative outreach strategies aimed to support, in times of crisis, these vulnerable segments of the population.

Effectiveness of a Mindful Compassion Care Program in reducing burnout and psychological distress amongst frontline hospital nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown that nurses have been more affected by the COVID-19 pandemic than any other group of hospital workers in terms of anxiety, depression, and burnout. Several clinical studies had previously demonstrated the effectiveness of mindfulness and compassion interventions in reducing burnout and emotional distress amongst healthcare professionals. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A parallel-group randomized controlled trial will assess the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of a mindfulness and compassion-focused programme on frontline nurses who had been working during the COVID-19 pandemic. Seventy-two participants will be recruited from Verona University Hospital Trust (Veneto Region, north-east Italy) and will be divided equally into an intervention group and a control group. Primary outcome will be assessed using the Emotional Exhaustion subscale of the Maslach Burnout Inventory General Survey (MBI-GS). Secondary outcomes will be measured by the Cynicism and Professional Efficacy subscales of the MBI-GS, the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7), the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), the Impact of Stressful Events (IES-R), the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ), and the Forms of Self-Criticising/attacking and Self-Reassuring Scale (FSCRS). DISCUSSION: The study aims to fill a gap in the literature and present a scientifically validated intervention for those healthcare professionals most exposed to the stressful conditions of working during the COVID-19 pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; Identifier: NCT05308537.

Development and psychometric validation of new questionnaires assessing experienced discrimination and internalised stigma among people with Covid-19.

AIMS: To develop and validate two new standardised measures assessing, respectively, experienced discrimination (Covid-19 Experienced DISCrimination scale, CEDISC) and internalised stigma (COvid-19 INternalised Stigma scale, COINS) in people who had been infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or had developed coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) disease. METHODS: Both the CEDISC and the COINS were developed in Italian and tested for ease of use, comprehension, acceptability, the relevance of items and response options within a focus group session. Online cross-sectional validation survey was conducted among adults infected with SARS-CoV-2 or who developed Covid-19 disease, members of a closed Facebook discussion group in Italy. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with Promax oblique rotation; the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and the Bartlett's test of sphericity were used to assess the suitability of the sample for factor analysis. Reliability was assessed as internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha and as test-retest reliability using weighted kappa and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Precision was examined by Kendall's tau-b coefficient. RESULTS: Overall, 579 participants completed the CEDISC, 519 also completed the COINS, 155 completed the retest for both scales after two weeks. The 12 items of the CEDISC converged over a 2-factor solution ('social life' and 'close relations') accounting for 49.2% of the variance (KMO = 0.894; Bartlett's test p < 0.001); the 13 items of the COINS converged over a 3-factor solution ('self-perception', 'close relations' and 'social life') accounting for 67.7% (KMO = 0.827; Bartlett's test p < 0.001). Cronbach's α was 0.848 for the CEDISC, and 0.837 for the COINS. The CEDISC showed three items (25%) with kappa between 0.61 and 0.80 and seven (58.4%) between 0.41 and 0.60, with only two items scoring 0.21 and 0.40; the COINS had ten items (76.9%) with kappa ranging from 0.41 to 0.60, and three items below 0.31. ICC was 0.906 (95% CI, 0.871-0.932) for the, CEDISC and 0.860 (95% CI, 0.808-0.898) for the COINS. Kendall's tau-b ranged from 0.360 to 0.556 (p < 0.001) for the CEDISC and from 0.290 to 0.606 (p < 0.001) for the COINS. CONCLUSIONS: Both the CEDISC and the COINS are two valid and reliable scales to be used in studies examining the role of stigma and discrimination of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 and Covid-19 patients, and in research evaluating interventions designed to mitigate stigma in this population.

The Sustained Psychological Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Health Care Workers One Year after the Outbreak-A Repeated Cross-Sectional Survey in a Tertiary Hospital of North-East Italy.

This study aimed to evaluate the mental health outcomes of health care workers (HCWs) of the Verona academic hospital trust (Italy) one year after the outbreak of COVID-19 and to identify predicted risk factors. A web-based survey was conducted from mid-April to mid-May 2021 on hospital workers one year after the first evaluation performed during the lock-down phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Post-traumatic stress, general anxiety, depression, and burnout were assessed by using, respectively, the impact of event scale (IES-R), the self-rating anxiety scale (SAS), the patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9) and the Maslach burnout inventory-general survey (MBI-GS). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with each of the four mental health outcomes one year after the COVID-19 outbreak. A total of 1033 HCWs participated. The percentage of HCWs scoring above the cut-off increased from 2020 to 2021 in all of the outcome domains (anxiety, 50.1% vs. 55.7, p < 0.05; depression, 26.6% vs. 40.6%, p < 0.001; burnout, 28.6% vs. 40.6%, p < 0.001; chi-square test), with the exception of post-traumatic distress. There was also an increase when stratifying by occupation and workplace, with a greater increase for depression and burnout. Multivariate analysis revealed that, one year after the COVID-19 outbreak, nurses were at the greatest risk of anxiety and depression, whereas residents were at the greatest risk of burnout (in terms of low professional efficacy). Working in intensive care units was associated with an increased risk of developing severe emotional exhaustion and a cynical attitude towards work.

The psychological impact of COVID-19 among primary care physicians in the province of Verona, Italy: a cross-sectional study during the first pandemic wave.

BACKGROUND: Among healthcare professionals working with COVID-19 patients, general practitioners (GPs) are under considerable pressure and may develop adverse mental health outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess mental health outcomes on GPs working during the COVID-19 pandemic and to explore their associations with personal characteristics and features of GP practices. METHODS: Observational cross-sectional study conducted on a sample of GPs working in Verona province (Italy) during the first pandemic wave. Participants were invited to complete a web-based form addressing socio-demographic and work-related information, previous practice organization, practice re-organization during the COVID-19 pandemic, and a set of measures for post-traumatic stress (IES-R), anxiety (SAS), depression (PHQ-9), and burnout (MBI-GS). RESULTS: A total of 215 GPs (38.3% of the eligible population) participated. Overall, 44.7% reported COVID-19-related traumatic events; among these, 35.9% (95% CI, 26%‒46%) developed symptoms of post-traumatic distress. Furthermore, 36% (95% CI, 29%‒43%) reported symptoms of anxiety, 17.9% (95% CI, 12%‒23%) symptoms of at least moderate depression, and 25.4% (95% CI, 19%‒32%) symptoms of burnout. Multivariate regressions showed that being quarantined or admitted for COVID-19 was associated with all the mental health outcomes considered. Being female, working in rural settings, and having less professional experience were associated with higher anxiety and depression. The ability to diagnose COVID-19 increased self-perceived professional efficacy, thus contributing to burnout reduction. CONCLUSION: The high prevalence of adverse mental health outcomes among GPs during the pandemic highlights the importance of timely interventions in this population and promoting targeted preventive actions in the event of future healthcare crises.

Levels of burn-out among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic and their associated factors: a cross-sectional study in a tertiary hospital of a highly burdened area of north-east Italy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine burn-out levels and associated factors among healthcare personnel working in a tertiary hospital of a highly burdened area of north-east Italy during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Observational study conducted from 21 April to 6 May 2020 using a web-based questionnaire. SETTING: Research conducted in the Verona University Hospital (Veneto, Italy). PARTICIPANTS: Out of 2195 eligible participants, 1961 healthcare workers with the full range of professional profiles (89.3%) completed the survey. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Levels of burn-out, assessed by the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with burn-out in each MBI-GS dimension (emotional exhaustion, EX; professional efficacy, EF; cynicism, CY). RESULTS: Overall, 38.3% displayed high EX, 46.5% low EF and 26.5% high CY. Burn-out was frequent among staff working in intensive care units (EX 57.0%; EF 47.8%; CY 40.1%), and among residents (EX 34.9%; EF 63.9%; CY 33.4%) and nurses (EX 49.2%; EF 46.9%; CY 29.7%). Being a resident increased the risk of burn-out (by nearly 2.5 times) in all the three MBI subscales and being a nurse increased the risk of burn-out in the EX dimension in comparison to physicians. Healthcare staff directly engaged with patients with COVID-19 showed more EX and CY than those working in non-COVID wards. Finally, the risk of burn-out was higher in staff showing pre-existing psychological problems, in those having experienced a COVID-related traumatic event and in those having experienced interpersonal avoidance in the workplace and personal life. CONCLUSIONS: Burn-out represents a great concern for healthcare staff working in a large tertiary hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact is more burdensome for front-line junior physicians. This study underlines the need to carefully address psychological well-being of healthcare workers to prevent the increase of burn-out in the event of a new COVID-19 healthcare emergency.

[Epidemic emergencies and social stigma. Which lessons should we learn from SARS and Ebola epidemics for the current CoViD-19 pandemics?] / Emergenze epidemiche e stigma sociale. Quali insegnamenti trarre dalle precedenti epidemie di SARS ed Ebola da applicare nell'attuale pandemia CoViD-19?

Scientific literature produced during the most recent international epidemic emergencies, such as SARS and Ebola, highlights that infected persons are often labeled, rejected, discriminated and subjected to loss of status due to their perceived link with the disease. Such experiences of discrimination may have detrimental effects on both patients, their family members, friends and communities. It is also possible that those who have been infected with COVD-19 may experience shame, guilt and sense of isolation arising from social stigma. It is therefore important to take full advantage of experiences gained during past epidemic crises, in order to implement timely measures to tackle this further negative consequence of the pandemic.