ABSTRACT
ObjectivesTo determine how workplace experiences of NHS staff varied by ethnic group during the COVID-19 pandemic and examine how these experiences are associated with mental and physical health at the time of the study. MethodsAn online Inequalities Survey was conducted by the TIDES study (Tackling Inequalities and Discrimination Experiences in health Services) in collaboration with NHS CHECK. This Inequalities Survey collected measures relating to workplace experiences (such as personal protective equipment (PPE), risk assessments, redeployments, and discrimination) as well as mental health, and physical health from NHS staff working in the 18 trusts participating with the NHS CHECK study between February and October 2021 (N=4622). ResultsRegression analysis revealed that staff from Black and Mixed/Other ethnic groups had greater odds of experiencing workplace harassment (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 2.43 [1.56-3.78] and 2.38 [1.12-5.07], respectively) and discrimination (AOR = 4.36 [2.73-6.96], and 3.94 [1.67-9.33], respectively) compared to White British staff. Staff from black ethnic groups also had greater odds than White British staff of reporting PPE unavailability (AOR = 2.16 [1.16-4.00]). Such workplace experiences were associated with negative physical and mental health outcomes, though this association varied by ethnicity. Conversely, understanding employment rights around redeployment, being informed about, and having the ability to inform redeployment decisions were associated with lower odds of poor health outcomes. ConclusionsStructural changes to the way staff from ethnically minoritised groups are supported, and how their complaints are addressed by leaders within the NHS are urgently required to address racism and inequalities in the NHS. Policy implicationsMaintaining transparency and implementing effective mechanisms for addressing poor working conditions, harassment, and discrimination is crucial in the NHS. This can be achieved through appointing a designated staff member, establishing a tracking system, and training HR managers in identifying and handling reports of racial discrimination. Incorporating diversity and inclusion considerations into professional development activities and providing staff with opportunities to actively participate in decision-making can also benefit their health. The NHS Workforce Race Equality Standard may need to broaden its scope to assess race equality effectively.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Staff in the National Health Service (NHS) have been placed under considerable strain during the COVID-19 pandemic; whilst NHS Trusts provide a variety of health and wellbeing support services, there has been little research investigating staff perceptions of these services. Moreover, the research that does exist typically includes only clinical staff, despite a large proportion of patient-facing NHS workers being in non-clinical roles. We interviewed forty-eight clinical and non-clinical healthcare workers from eighteen NHS Trusts in England about their experiences of workplace health and wellbeing support during the pandemic. Reflexive thematic analysis identified that perceived stigma around help-seeking, and staffing shortages due to wider socio-political contexts such as austerity, were barriers to using support services. Visible, caring leadership at all levels (CEO to line managers), peer support, easily accessible services, and clear communication about support offers were enablers. Our evidence suggests Trusts should have active strategies to improve help-seeking. This could involve providing all staff with regular reminders about support options, in a variety of formats (e.g. email, posters, mentioned in meetings), and easily remembered single points of access, delivered by a mix of in-house and externally-provided services, to cater for those more and less concerned about stigma and confidentiality. In addition, managers at all levels should be trained and supported to feel confident to speak about mental health with staff, with formal peer support facilitated by building in time for this during working hours. As others have pointed out, this will require long-term strategic planning to address workforce shortages.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background: Moral injury is defined as the strong emotional and cognitive reactions following events which clash with someones moral code, values or expectations. During the COVID-19 pandemic, increased exposure to potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs) has placed healthcare workers (HCWs) at risk of moral injury. Yet little is known about the lived experience of cumulative PMIE exposure and how NHS staff respond to this. Objective: We sought to rectify this knowledge gap by qualitatively exploring the lived experiences and perspectives of clinical frontline NHS staff who responded to COVID-19. Methods: We recruited a diverse sample of 30 clinical frontline HCWs from the NHS CHECK study cohort, for single time point qualitative interviews. All participants endorsed at least one item on the 9-item Moral Injury Events Scale (MIES) (Nash et al., 2013) at six month follow up. Interviews followed a semi-structured guide and were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: HCWs described being routinely exposed to ethical conflicts, created by exacerbations of pre-existing systemic issues including inadequate staffing and resourcing. We found that HCWs experienced a range of mental health symptoms primarily related to perceptions of institutional betrayal as well as feeling unable to fulfil their duty of care towards patients. Conclusion: These results suggest that a multi-facetted organisational strategy is warranted to prepare for PMIE exposure, promote opportunities for resolution of symptoms associated with moral injury and prevent organisational disengagement.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Chemical and Drug Induced Liver InjuryABSTRACT
Objective To examine variations in impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of all types of healthcare workers (HCWs) in England over the first 17 months of the pandemic. Method We undertook a prospective cohort study of 22,501 HCWs from 18 English acute and mental health NHS Trusts, collecting online survey data on common mental disorders (CMDs), depression, anxiety, alcohol use, and PTSD, from April 2020 to August 2021. We analysed these data cross-sectionally by time period (corresponding to periods the NHS was under most pressure), and longitudinally. Data were weighted to better represent Trust population demographics. Results The proportion of those with probable CMDs was greater during periods when the NHS was under most pressure (measured by average monthly deaths). For example, 55% (95%CI 53%, 58%) of participants reported symptoms of CMDs in April-June 2020 versus 47% (95%CI 46%, 48%) July-October 2020. Contrary to expectation, there were no major differences between professional groups (i.e. clinical and non-clinical staff). Younger, female, lower paid staff, who felt poorly supported by colleagues/managers, and who experienced potentially morally injurious events were most at risk of negative mental health outcomes. Conclusion Among HCWs, the prevalence of probable CMDs increased during periods of escalating pressure on the NHS, suggesting staff support should be increased at such points in the future, and staff should be better prepared for such situations via training. All staff, regardless of role, experienced poorer mental health during these periods, suggesting that support should be provided for all staff groups.
Subject(s)
Anxiety Disorders , Depressive Disorder , Mental Disorders , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic , Chemical and Drug Induced Liver Injury , COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background Healthcare workers (HCWs) have provided vital services during the COVID-19 pandemic, but existing research consists of quantitative surveys (lacking in depth or context) or qualitative interviews (with limited generalisability). Structural Topic Modelling (STM) of large-scale free-text survey data offers a way of capturing the perspectives of a wide range of HCWs in their own words about their experiences of the pandemic. Methods In an online survey distributed to all staff at 18 geographically dispersed NHS Trusts, we asked respondents, Is there anything else you think we should know about your experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic?. We used STM on 7,412 responses to identify topics, and thematic analysis on the resultant topics and text excerpts. Results We identified 33 topics, grouped into two domains, each containing four themes. Our findings emphasise: the deleterious effect of increased workloads, lack of PPE, inconsistent advice/guidance, and lack of autonomy; differing experiences of home working as negative/positive; and the benefits of supportive leadership and peers in ameliorating challenges. Themes varied by demographics and time: discussion of home working decreasing over time, while discussion of workplace challenges increased. Discussion of mental health was lowest between September-November 2020, between the first and second waves of COVID-19 in the UK. Discussion Our findings represent the most salient experiences of HCWs through the pandemic. STM enabled statistical examination of how the qualitative themes raised differed according to participant characteristics. This relatively underutilised methodology in healthcare research can provide more nuanced, yet generalisable, evidence than that available via surveys or small interview studies, and should be used in future research.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background Potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs) can negatively impact mental health. The COVID-19 pandemic may have placed healthcare staff at risk of moral injury. Aim To examine the impact of PMIE on healthcare staff wellbeing. Method 12,965 healthcare staff (clinical and non-clinical) were recruited from 18 NHS-England trusts into a survey of PMIE exposure and wellbeing. Results PMIEs were significantly associated with adverse mental health symptoms across healthcare staff. Specific work factors were significantly associated with experiences of moral injury, including being redeployed, lack of PPE, and having a colleague die of COVID-19. Nurses who reported symptoms of mental disorders were more likely to report all forms of PMIEs than those without symptoms (AOR 2.7; 95% CI 2.2, 3.3). Doctors who reported symptoms were only more likely to report betrayal events, such as breach of trust by colleagues (AOR 2.7, 95% CI 1.5, 4.9). Conclusions A considerable proportion of NHS healthcare staff in both clinical and non-clinical roles report exposure to PMIEs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospective research is needed to identify the direction of causation between moral injury and mental disorder as well as continuing to monitor the longer term outcomes of exposure to PMIEs.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mental Disorders , Wounds and InjuriesABSTRACT
BackgroundCOVID-19 antibody testing allows population studies to classify participants by previous SARS-CoV-2 infection status. Home lateral flow immune-antibody testing devices offer a very convenient way of doing this, but relatively little is known about how measurement and antibody variability will affect consistency in results over time. We examined consistency by looking at the outcome of two tests three months apart while COVID-19 infection rates were low (summer 2020 in the UK). MethodsThe KCL-Coronavirus Health and Experiences in Colleagues at Kings is an occupational cohort of staff and postgraduate research students. Lateral flow immune-antibody testing kits were sent to participants homes in late June 2020 and late September 2020. Participants also completed regular surveys that included asking about COVID-19 symptoms and whether they thought they had been infected. ResultsWe studied 1489 participants returned valid results in both June and September (59% of those sent kits). Lateral flow immune-antibody test was positive for 7.2% in June and 5.9% in September, with 3.9% positive in both. Being more symptomatic or suspecting infection increased the probability of ever being positive. Of those positive in June, 46% (49/107) were negative in September (seroreversion), and this was similar regardless of symptom characteristics, suspicion, and timing of possible infection. A possible outlier was those aged over 55 years, where only 3 of 13 (23%) had seroreversion. DiscussionThese results do not follow the pattern reported from studies specifically designed to monitor seropositivity, which have found greater consistency over time and the influence of presence, timing and severity of symptoms on seroreversion. We suggest several factors that may have contributed to this difference: our low bar in defining initial seropositivity (single test); a non-quantitative test known to have relatively low sensitivity; participants carrying out testing. We would encourage other studies to use these real-world performance characteristics alongside those from laboratory studies to plan and analyse any antibody testing.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic is a novel population-level stressor. As such, it is important to examine pandemic-related changes in mental health and to identify which individuals are at greatest risk of worsening symptoms. Methods: Online questionnaires were administered to 34,465 individuals in the UK, recruited from existing cohorts or via social media. Around one third (n = 12,718) with prior diagnoses of depression or anxiety completed pre-pandemic mental health assessments, allowing prospective investigation of symptom change. We examined changes in depression, anxiety and PTSD symptoms using prospective, retrospective and global ratings of change assessments. We also examined the effect of key risk factors on changes in symptoms.Outcomes: Prospective analyses showed small decreases in depression (PHQ-9: - .43 points) and anxiety symptoms (GAD-7: -.33 points), and increases in PTSD symptoms (PCL-6: .22 points). Conversely, retrospective analyses demonstrated large significant increases in depression (2.40 points) and anxiety symptoms (1.97 points) and 55% reported worsening mental health since the beginning of the pandemic on a global change rating. Using both prospective and retrospective symptom measures, regression analyses demonstrated that worsening depression, anxiety and PTSD symptoms were associated with i) prior mental health diagnoses, ii) female gender; iii) young age, and iv) unemployed or student status.Interpretation: We highlight the effect of prior mental health diagnoses on worsening mental health during the pandemic and confirm previously-reported sociodemographic risk factors. Discrepancies between prospective and retrospective measures of changes in mental health may be related to recall bias underestimating prior symptom severity.
Subject(s)
Anxiety Disorders , Intellectual Disability , COVID-19 , Stress Disorders, Post-TraumaticABSTRACT
We report test results for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in an occupational group of postgraduate research students and current members of staff at King's College London. Between June and July 2020, antibody testing kits were sent to n=2296 participants; n=2004 (86.3%) responded, of whom n=1882 (93.9%) returned valid test results. Of those that returned valid results, n=124 (6.6%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, with initial comparisons showing variation by age group and clinical exposure.
ABSTRACT
Introduction We will use a sub-sample of a current longitudinal study to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on the health and wellbeing of ex-service personnel in the UK. The study will provide evidence for the UK Office of Veterans' Affairs (OVA), UK stakeholders supporting the ex-service community, and evidence to inform our international counterparts working with ex-service communities in allied countries regarding the impact of COVID-19 on the health and wellbeing of ex-service personnel. Methods and analysis Participants were eligible to participate if they lived in the UK, had Regular service history from the UK Armed Forces and had previously completed the King's Centre for Military Health Research (KCMHR) Health and Wellbeing survey between 2014-2016. Participants who met these criteria were recruited through email to take part in an online questionnaire. The study provides additional quantitative longitudinal data on this sub-sample. Data are being collected June 2020-September 2020. Specific measures are used to capture participants' COVID-19 experiences, health and wellbeing status and lifestyle behaviours. Other key topics will include questions regarding the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on employment, finances, volunteering, charitable giving, accommodation and living arrangements, help-seeking behaviours, as well as any potential positive changes during this period. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been gained from King's College London Research Ethics Committee (Ref: HR-19/20-18626). Participants were provided with information and agreed to a series of consent statements before enrolment. Data are kept on secure servers with access to personally identifiable information limited. Findings will be disseminated to the OVA, UK ex-service stakeholders and international research institutions through stakeholder meetings, project reports and scientific publications.