Perspectives of Volunteer Firefighters during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Stumbling Blocks and Silver Linings.

The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly affected the lives of almost every individual in every nation, with numbers of infections continuing to grow. Across these nations, first responders are essential in their roles addressing emergencies, despite their risk of exposure to COVID-19 in the course of their work. We sought to understand the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the lives of volunteer firefighters in the United States, an understudied group of these first responders. Interviews were conducted with volunteer firefighters between September and November 2021. Interviews were analyzed using deductive dominant thematic analysis. Thirty-three firefighters were interviewed who had an average of 22 years of service and a mean age of 52 years. Interviewees described pandemic-related challenges including the fear of COVID exposure and frustrations with work and personal relationships. They also identified unexpected work-related benefits including a deepened commitment to serve and improvements to training and safety. Further, some volunteers noted personal benefits such as developing stronger connections with others, having a new outlook on life, and observing goodwill. Our findings provide insight into the multifaceted and complex impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on volunteer firefighters.

Pandemic Experience of First Responders: Fear, Frustration, and Stress.

Police officers, firefighters, and paramedics are on the front lines of crises and emergencies, placing them at high risk of COVID-19 infection. A deeper understanding of the challenges facing first responders during the COVID-19 pandemic is necessary to better support this important workforce. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 first responders during the COVID-19 pandemic, asking about the impact of COVID-19. Data collected from our study interviews revealed that, despite large numbers of COVID-19 infections among the staff of police and fire departments, some-but not all-first responders were concerned about COVID-19. A similar divide existed within this group regarding whether or not to receive a COVID-19 vaccination. Many first responders reported frustration over COVID-19 information because of inconsistencies across sources, misinformation on social media, and the impact of politics. In addition, first responders described increased stress due to the COVID-19 pandemic caused by factors such as the fear of COVID exposure during emergency responses, concerns about infecting family members, and frustration surrounding new work policies. Our findings provide insight into the impact of COVID-19 on first responders and highlight the importance of providing resources for education about COVID-19 risks and vaccination, as well as for addressing first responders' mental health and well-being.

The COVID-19 vaccine concerns scale: Development and validation of a new measure.

Reasons for COVID-19 hesitancy are multi-faceted and tend to differ from those for general vaccine hesitancy. We developed the COVID-19 Vaccine Concerns Scale (CVCS), a self-report measure intended to better understand individuals' concerns about COVID-19 vaccines. We validated the scale using data from a convenience sample of 2,281 emergency medical services providers, a group of professionals with high occupational COVID-19 risk. Measures included the CVCS items, an adapted Oxford COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale, a general vaccine hesitancy scale, demographics, and self-reported COVID-19 vaccination status. The CVCS had high internal consistency reliability (α = .89). A one-factor structure was determined by exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA and CFA), resulting in a seven-item scale. The model had good fit (X2[14] = 189.26, p < .001; CFI = .95, RMSEA = .11 [.09, .12], NNFI = .93, SRMR = .03). Moderate Pearson correlations with validated scales of general vaccine hesitancy (r = .71 , p < .001; n = 2144) and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (r = .82; p < .001; n = 2279) indicated construct validity. The CVCS predicted COVID-19 vaccination status (B = -2.21, Exp(B) = .11 [95% CI = .09, .13], Nagelkerke R2 = .55), indicating criterion-related validity. In sum, the 7-item CVCS is a reliable and valid self-report measure to examine fears and concerns about COVID-19 vaccines. The scale predicts COVID-19 vaccination status and can be used to inform efforts to reduce COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

An Opportunity to Understand Concerns about COVID-19 Vaccination: Perspectives from EMS Professionals.

Some healthcare professionals, including emergency medical service (EMS) professionals, remain hesitant about receiving COVID-19 vaccines. This study sought to understand EMS professionals' perspectives regarding COVID-19 vaccination. Using open-ended comments from a national survey deployed electronically to over 19,000 EMS professionals in April of 2021, we examined perspectives about acceptance of and hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccines. Survey comments revealed differences in perspectives between vaccinated and unvaccinated EMS professionals regarding their personal role in improving public health through COVID-19 vaccination as well as vaccine benefits and the protection conferred by vaccination. Unvaccinated individuals also expressed concerns over the research and development of the COVID-19 vaccines that led to their decision not to get vaccinated. Individuals who were vaccinated suggested ways to increase uptake of the vaccine including having healthcare professionals serve as leaders for vaccination and educating individuals about COVID-19 vaccination through credible resources. Vaccine hesitancy remains a challenge to achieving herd immunity to COVID-19 through vaccination, even among healthcare professionals. Understanding the perspectives of those who have chosen not to be vaccinated can help direct strategies to reduce confusion and concerns. The perspectives of vaccinated individuals may also be valuable in identifying opportunities to promote vaccination in the professional setting.

Closing the Gap on COVID-19 Vaccinations in First Responders and Beyond: Increasing Trust.

Although COVID-19 vaccines are widely available in the U.S. and much of the world, many have chosen to forgo this vaccination. Emergency medical services (EMS) professionals, despite their role on the frontlines and interactions with COVID-positive patients, are not immune to vaccine hesitancy. Via a survey conducted in April 2021, we investigated the extent to which first responders in the U.S. trusted various information sources to provide reliable information about COVID-19 vaccines. Those vaccinated generally trusted healthcare providers as a source of information, but unvaccinated first responders had fairly low trust in this information source-a group to which they, themselves, belong. Additionally, regardless of vaccination status, trust in all levels of government, employers, and their community as sources of information was low. Free-response explanations provided some context to these findings, such as preference for other COVID-19 management options, including drugs proven ineffective. A trusted source of COVID-19 vaccination information is not readily apparent. Individuals expressed a strong desire for the autonomy to make vaccination decisions for themselves, as opposed to mandates. Potential reasons for low trust, possible solutions to address them, generalizability to the broader public, and implications of low trust in official institutions are discussed.

Examining Patients' Capacity to Use Patient Portals: Insights for Telehealth.

BACKGROUND: The increase in telehealth in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic highlights the need to understand patients' capacity to utilize this care modality. Patient portals are a tool whose use requires similar resources and skills as those required for telehealth. Patients' capacity to use patient portals may therefore provide insight regarding patients' readiness and capacity to use telehealth. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine factors related to patients' capacity to use a patient portal and test the impact of these factors on patients' portal use. RESEARCH DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: Using data from a large-scale pragmatic randomized controlled trial of patient portal use, 1081 hospitalized patients responded to survey items that were then mapped onto the 4 dimensions of the Engagement Capacity Framework: self-efficacy, resources, willingness, and capabilities. MEASURES: The outcome variable was frequency of outpatient portal use. We evaluated associations between Engagement Capacity Framework dimensions and patient portal use, using regression analyses. RESULTS: Patients with fewer resources, fewer capabilities, lower willingness, and lower overall capacity to use patient portals used the portal less; in contrast, those with lower perceived self-efficacy used the portal more. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight differences in patients' capacity to use patient portals, which provide an initial understanding of factors that may influence the use of telehealth and offer important guidance in efforts to support patients' telehealth use. Offering patients training tailored to the use of telehealth tools may be particularly beneficial.

COVID-19 Vaccinations in EMS Professionals: Prevalence and Predictors.

Background: Immunizations for emergency medical services (EMS) professionals during pandemics are an important tool to increase the safety of the workforce as well as their patients. The purpose of this study was to better understand EMS professionals' decisions to receive or decline a COVID-19 vaccine.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of nationally certified EMS professionals (18-85 years) in April 2021. Participants received an electronic survey asking whether they received a vaccine, why or why not, and their associated beliefs using three validated scales: perceived risk of COVID-19, medical mistrust, and confidence in the COVID-19 vaccine. Data were merged with National Registry dataset demographics. Analyses included descriptive analysis and multivariable logistic regression (OR, 95% CI). Multivariate imputation by chained equations was used for missingness.Results: A total of 2,584 respondents satisfied inclusion criteria (response rate = 14%). Overall, 70% of EMS professionals were vaccinated. Common reasons for vaccination among vaccinated respondents were to protect oneself (76%) and others (73%). Common reasons for non-vaccination among non-vaccinated respondents included concerns about vaccine safety (53%) and beliefs that vaccination was not necessary (39%). Most who had not received the vaccine did not plan to get it in the future (84%). Hesitation was most frequently related to wanting to see how the vaccine was working for others (55%). Odds of COVID-19 vaccination were associated with demographics including age (referent <28 years; 39-50 years: 1.56, 1.17-2.08; >51 years: 2.22, 1.64-3.01), male sex (1.26, 1.01-1.58), residing in an urban/suburban area (referent rural; 1.36, 1.08-1.70), advanced education (referent GED/high school and below; bachelor's and above: 1.72, 1.19-2.47), and working at a hospital (referent fire-based agency; 1.53, 1.04-2.24). Additionally, vaccination odds were significantly higher with greater perceived risk of COVID-19 (2.05, 1.68-2.50), and higher vaccine confidence (2.84, 2.40-3.36). Odds of vaccination were significantly lower with higher medical mistrust (0.54, 0.46-0.63).Conclusion: Despite vaccine availability, not all EMS professionals had been vaccinated. The decision to receive a COVID-19 vaccine was associated with demographics, beliefs regarding COVID-19 and the vaccine, and medical mistrust. Efforts to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates should emphasize the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

Management practices for leaders to promote infection prevention: Lessons from a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Prevention of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) is critical to reduce preventable deaths and healthcare costs. Variable success with HAI prevention efforts has suggested that management practices are critical to support clinical infection prevention practices. This study examined hospital leaders' management practices around the prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) and central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) to identify actions that leaders can take to promote HAI prevention efforts. METHODS: We conducted interviews with 420 key informants, including managers and frontline staff, in 18 hospitals across the United States. Interviewees were asked about management practices supporting HAI prevention. We analyzed interview transcripts using rigorous qualitative methods to understand how management practices were operationalized in infection prevention efforts. RESULTS: Across hospitals and interviewees, three management practices were characterized as important facilitators of HAI prevention: (1) engagement of executive leadership; (2) information sharing; and (3) manager coaching. We found that visible executive leadership, efficient communication, and frequent opportunities to provide and promote learning from feedback were perceived to promote and sustain HAI prevention efforts. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide insight into management practices for leaders that support successful HAI prevention. In practice, these tactics may need to be adjusted to accommodate the current restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, in order to maintain HAI prevention efforts as a priority.

Rewarding and recognizing frontline staff for success in infection prevention.

Management practices help support efforts to prevent healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). Providing rewards and recognition to frontline staff is one management practice found to be in use by hospitals that are higher-performers in HAI prevention. Using data from interviews with hospital managers and frontline staff at 18 US hospitals, our study identifies how managers can use reward and recognition programs as motivational tools to sustain frontline HAI prevention efforts.