Psychosocial and behavioral outcomes in the adult workforce during the COVID-19 pandemic: a 1-Year longitudinal survey.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to limit the spread of COVID-19 have included public space closures, mask usage, and quarantining. Studies regarding the impact of these measures on the psychosocial and behavioral health outcomes of the workforce have focused frequently on healthcare employees. To expand the literature base, we deployed a one-year longitudinal survey among mostly non-healthcare employees assessing changes in select psychosocial outcomes, health behaviors, and COVID-19-related transmission prevention behaviors and perceptions. METHODS: We deployed the CAPTURE baseline survey across eight companies from November 20, 2020-February 8, 2021. The baseline survey included questions on psychosocial outcomes, health behaviors, and COVID-19 transmission prevention behaviors, with several questions containing a retrospective component to cover the time period prior to the pandemic. Additional questions on vaccination status and social support were subsequently added, and the updated survey deployed to the same baseline participants at three, six, and 12 months after baseline survey deployment. We analyzed data descriptively and performed Friedman's and subsequent Wilcoxon-signed rank tests, as appropriate, to compare data within and between time points. RESULTS: A total of 3607, 1788, 1545, and 1687 employees completed the baseline, 3-month, 6-month, and 12-month CAPTURE surveys, respectively, with 816 employees completing all four time points. Employees reported higher stress, anxiety, fatigue, and feelings of being unsafe across all time points compared to pre-pandemic. Time spent sleeping increased initially but returned to pre-pandemic levels at follow-up. Lower rates of physical activity and higher rates of non-work screen time and alcohol consumption relative to pre-pandemic were also reported. Over 90% of employees perceived wearing a mask, physical distancing, and receiving the COVID-19 vaccine as 'moderately' or 'very important' in preventing the spread of COVID-19 across all time points. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to pre-pandemic, poorer psychosocial outcomes and worsened health behaviors were observed across all time points, with values worse at the baseline and 12-month time points when COVID-19 surges were highest. While COVID-19 prevention behaviors were consistently deemed to be important by employees, the psychosocial outcome and health behavior data suggest the potential for harmful long-term effects of the pandemic on the well-being of non-healthcare employees.

Changes in all-cause and cause-specific mortality during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Minnesota: population-based study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in unprecedented increases in mortality in the U.S. and worldwide. To better understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mortality in the state of Minnesota, U.S.A., we characterize the changes in the causes of death during 2020 (COVID-19 period), compared to 2018-2019 (baseline period), assessing for differences across ages, races, ethnicities, sexes, and geographic characteristics. METHODS: Longitudinal population-based study using Minnesota death certificate data, 2018-2020. Using Poisson regression models adjusted for age and sex, we calculated all-cause and cause-specific (by underlying causes of death) mortality rates per 100,000 Minnesotans, the demographics of the deceased, and years of life lost (YLL) using the Chiang's life table method in 2020 relative to 2018-2019. RESULTS: We identified 89,910 deaths in 2018-2019 and 52,030 deaths in 2020. The mean daily mortality rate increased from 123.1 (SD 11.7) in 2018-2019 to 144.2 (SD 22.1) in 2020. COVID-19 comprised 9.9% of deaths in 2020. Other categories of causes of death with significant increases in 2020 compared to 2018-2019 included assault by firearms (RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.34-2.11), accidental poisonings (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.37-1.61), malnutrition (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.17-1.87), alcoholic liver disease (RR, 95% CI 1.14-1.40), and cirrhosis and other chronic liver diseases (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.09-1.50). Mortality rates due to COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 causes were higher among racial and ethnic minority groups, older adults, and non-rural residents. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a 17% increase in the death rate in Minnesota relative to 2018-2019, driven by both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 causes. As the COVID-19 pandemic enters its third year, it is imperative to examine and address the factors contributing to excess mortality in the short-term and monitor for additional morbidity and mortality in the years to come.

Psychosocial and Behavioral Outcomes and Transmission Prevention Behaviors: Working During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on psychosocial and behavioral responses of the non-health care workforce and to evaluate transmission prevention behavior implementation in the workplace. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: We deployed the baseline questionnaire of a prospective online survey from November 20, 2020, through February 8, 2021 to US-based employees. The survey included questions on psychosocial and behavioral responses in addition to transmission prevention behaviors (e.g., mask wearing). Select questions asked employees to report perceptions and behaviors before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were analyzed descriptively and stratified by work from home (WFH) percentage. RESULTS: In total, 3607 employees from 8 companies completed the survey. Most participants (70.0%) averaged 90% or more of their time WFH during the pandemic. Employees reported increases in stress (54.0%), anxiety (57.4%), fatigue (51.6%), feeling unsafe (50.4%), lack of companionship (60.5%), and feeling isolated from others (69.3%) from before to during the pandemic. Productivity was perceived to decrease for 42.9% of employees and non-work-related screen time and alcohol consumption to increase for 50.7% and 25.1% of employees, respectively, from before to during the pandemic. Adverse changes were worse among those with lower WFH percentages. Most employees reported wearing a mask (98.2%), washing hands regularly (95.7%), and physically distancing (93.6%) in the workplace. CONCLUSION: These results suggest worsened psychosocial and behavioral outcomes from before to during the COVID-19 pandemic and higher transmission prevention behavior implementation among non-health care employees. These observations provide novel insight into how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted non-health care employees.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on workplace violence at an academic emergency department.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 brought unique challenges; however, it remains unclear what effect the pandemic had on violence in healthcare. The objective of this study was to identify the impact of the pandemic on workplace violence at an academic emergency department (ED). METHODS: This mixed-methods study involved a prospective descriptive survey study and electronic medical record review. Within our hospital referral region (HRR), the first COVID-19 case was documented on 3/11/2020 and cases peaked in mid-November 2020. We compared the monthly HRR COVID-19 case rate per 100,000 people to the rate of violent incidents per 1000 ED visits. Multidisciplinary ED staff were surveyed both pre/early-pandemic (April 2020) and mid/late-pandemic (December 2020) regarding workplace violence experienced over the prior 6-months. The study was deemed exempt by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board. RESULTS: There was a positive association between the monthly HRR COVID-19 case rate and rate of violent ED incidents (r = 0.24). Violent incidents increased overall during the pandemic (2.53 incidents per 1000 visits) compared to the 3 months prior (1.13 incidents per 1000 visits, p < .001), as well as compared to the previous year (1.24 incidents per 1000 patient visits, p < .001). Survey respondents indicated a higher incidence of assault during the pandemic, compared to before (p = .019). DISCUSSION: Incidents of workplace violence at our ED increased during the pandemic and there was a positive association of these incidents with the COVID-19 case rate. Our findings indicate health systems should prioritize employee safety during future pandemics.

Barrier Enclosure for Endotracheal Intubation in a Simulated COVID-19 Scenario: A Crossover Study.

INTRODUCTION: Barrier enclosures have been developed to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission to healthcare providers during intubation, but little is known about their impact on procedure performance. We sought to determine whether a barrier enclosure delays time to successful intubation by experienced airway operators. METHODS: We conducted a crossover simulation study at a tertiary academic hospital. Participants watched a four-minute video, practiced one simulated intubation with a barrier enclosure, and then completed one intubation with and one without the barrier enclosure (randomized to determine order). The primary outcome measure was time from placement of the video laryngoscope at the lips to first delivered ventilation. Secondary outcomes were periprocedural complications and participant responses to a post-study survey. RESULTS: Proceduralists (n = 50) from emergency medicine and anesthesiology had median intubation times of 23.6 seconds with practice barrier enclosure, 20.5 seconds with barrier enclosure, and 16.7 seconds with no barrier. Intubation with barrier enclosure averaged 4.5 seconds longer (95% confidence interval, 2.7-6.4, p < .001) than without, but was less than the predetermined clinical significance threshold of 10 seconds. Three complications occurred, all during the practice intubation. Barrier enclosure made intubation more challenging according to 48%, but 90% indicated they would consider using it in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Experienced airway operators performed intubation using a barrier enclosure with minimal increased time to procedure completion in this uncomplicated airway model. Given potential to reduce droplet spread, use of a barrier enclosure may be an acceptable adjunct to endotracheal intubation for those familiar with its use.