Organizational responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Victoria, Australia: A qualitative study across four healthcare settings

Objective Organizational responses that support healthcare workers (HCWs) and mitigate health risks are necessary to offset the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to understand how HCWs and key personnel working in healthcare settings in Melbourne, Australia perceived their employing organizations' responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Method In this qualitative study, conducted May-July 2021 as part of the longitudinal Coronavirus in Victorian Healthcare and Aged Care Workers (COVIC-HA) study, we purposively sampled and interviewed HCWs and key personnel from healthcare organizations across hospital, ambulance, aged care and primary care (general practice) settings. We also examined HCWs' free-text responses to a question about organizational resources and/or supports from the COVIC-HA Study's baseline survey. We thematically analyzed data using an iterative process. Results We analyzed data from interviews with 28 HCWs and 21 key personnel and free-text responses from 365 HCWs, yielding three major themes: navigating a changing and uncertain environment, maintaining service delivery during a pandemic, and meeting the safety and psychological needs of staff . HCWs valued organizational efforts to engage openly and honesty with staff, and proactive responses such as strategies to enhance workplace safety (e.g., personal protective equipment spotters). Suggestions for improvement identified in the themes included streamlined information processes, greater involvement of HCWs in decision-making, increased investment in staff wellbeing initiatives and sustainable approaches to strengthen the healthcare workforce. Conclusions This study provides in-depth insights into the challenges and successes of organizational responses across four healthcare settings in the uncertain environment of a pandemic. Future efforts to mitigate the impact of acute stressors on HCWs should include a strong focus on bidirectional communication, effective and realistic strategies to strengthen and sustain the healthcare workforce, and greater investment in flexible and meaningful psychological support and wellbeing initiatives for HCWs.

Mental Health Outcomes in Australian Healthcare and Aged-Care Workers during the Second Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: the COVID-19 pandemic has incurred psychological risks for healthcare workers (HCWs). We established a Victorian HCW cohort (the Coronavirus in Victorian Healthcare and Aged-Care Workers (COVIC-HA) cohort study) to examine COVID-19 impacts on HCWs and assess organisational responses over time. METHODS: mixed-methods cohort study, with baseline data collected via an online survey (7 May-18 July 2021) across four healthcare settings: ambulance, hospitals, primary care, and residential aged-care. Outcomes included self-reported symptoms of depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress (PTS), wellbeing, burnout, and resilience, measured using validated tools. Work and home-related COVID-19 impacts and perceptions of workplace responses were also captured. RESULTS: among 984 HCWs, symptoms of clinically significant depression, anxiety, and PTS were reported by 22.5%, 14.0%, and 20.4%, respectively, highest among paramedics and nurses. Emotional exhaustion reflecting moderate-severe burnout was reported by 65.1%. Concerns about contracting COVID-19 at work and transmitting COVID-19 were common, but 91.2% felt well-informed on workplace changes and 78.3% reported that support services were available. CONCLUSIONS: Australian HCWs employed during 2021 experienced adverse mental health outcomes, with prevalence differences observed according to occupation. Longitudinal evidence is needed to inform workplace strategies that support the physical and mental wellbeing of HCWs at organisational and state policy levels.

Finding the facts in an infodemic: framing effective COVID-19 messages to connect people to authoritative content.

The public's need for timely and trusted COVID-19 information remains high. Governments and global health agencies such as the WHO have sought to disseminate accurate and timely information to counteract misinformation and disinformation that has arisen as part of an 'infodemic'-the overabundance of information on COVID-19-some accurate and some not. In early 2020, WHO began a collaboration with Google to run online public service announcements on COVID-19, in the form of search ads displayed above results of Google Search queries. Web-based text ads can drive online searchers of COVID-19 information to authoritative COVID-19 content but determining what message is most effective is a challenge. WHO wanted to understand which message framing, that is, the way in which ad information is worded for the public, leads searchers to click through to WHO content. WHO tested 71 text ads in English across four COVID-19 topics using a mix of message frames: descriptive, collective, gain, loss, appeals to values and emphasising reasons. Between 11 September 2020 and 23 November 2020, there were 13 million views of the experimental WHO text ads leading to 1.4 million click-throughs to the WHO website. Within the set of 71 ads, there was a large spread between the most effective and least effective messages; for messages on COVID-19, the best performing framings were more than twice as effective as the worst performing framings (18.7% vs 8.5% engagement rate). Health practitioners can apply the messaging tactics WHO found to be successful to rapidly optimise messages for their own public health campaigns and better reach the public with authoritative information. Similar collaboration between big technology companies and governments and global health agencies has the potential to advance public health.

Cardiac echocardiogram findings of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2-associated multi-system inflammatory syndrome in children.

BACKGROUND: A novel paediatric disease, multi-system inflammatory syndrome in children, has emerged during the 2019 coronavirus disease pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To describe the short-term evolution of cardiac complications and associated risk factors in patients with multi-system inflammatory syndrome in children. METHODS: Retrospective single-centre study of confirmed multi-system inflammatory syndrome in children treated from 29 March, 2020 to 1 September, 2020. Cardiac complications during the acute phase were defined as decreased systolic function, coronary artery abnormalities, pericardial effusion, or mitral and/or tricuspid valve regurgitation. Patients with or without cardiac complications were compared with chi-square, Fisher's exact, and Wilcoxon rank sum. RESULTS: Thirty-nine children with median (interquartile range) age 7.8 (3.6-12.7) years were included. Nineteen (49%) patients developed cardiac complications including systolic dysfunction (33%), valvular regurgitation (31%), coronary artery abnormalities (18%), and pericardial effusion (5%). At the time of the most recent follow-up, at a median (interquartile range) of 49 (26-61) days, cardiac complications resolved in 16/19 (84%) patients. Two patients had persistent mild systolic dysfunction and one patient had persistent coronary artery abnormality. Children with cardiac complications were more likely to have higher N-terminal B-type natriuretic peptide (p = 0.01), higher white blood cell count (p = 0.01), higher neutrophil count (p = 0.02), severe lymphopenia (p = 0.05), use of milrinone (p = 0.03), and intensive care requirement (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Patients with multi-system inflammatory syndrome in children had a high rate of cardiac complications in the acute phase, with associated inflammatory markers. Although cardiac complications resolved in 84% of patients, further long-term studies are needed to assess if the cardiac abnormalities (transient or persistent) are associated with major cardiac events.

Ethical Distribution of COVID-19 Vaccines to Health Care Workers: One Hospital System's Attempt at a Moral Allocation Algorithm

Early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, guidelines providing initial recommendations for ethical distribution of COVID-19 vaccines were released for public use before vaccines were available. Almost all these initial guidelines placed high-risk health workers in the first tier of distributions. But as the COVID-19 vaccines inched closer to distribution, it became increasingly clear that there would not be enough vaccines for all high-risk health workers in the initial distributions - raising the question of how health care systems should tier and distribute scarce vaccines to their high-risk health workers specifically. This article overviews our Health System's efforts to appropriately identify and stage our health care workers at highest risk of COVID-19 in order to provide an ethically justifiable allocation process for vaccines until they were no longer scarce. Our allocation algorithm aimed to capitalize on the data we already possessed, avoid violations of employee privacy or confidentiality, remain objective and unbiased, and be automatable. Moreover, our allocation algorithm importantly reflected Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines to include Social Vulnerability Indexing factors by including some personal features of our health care workers - such as gender, race-ethnicity, age, and postal code.

Management of Breast Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Stage- and Subtype-Specific Approach.

The COVID-19 pandemic has rapidly changed delivery of cancer care. Many nonurgent surgeries are delayed to preserve hospital resources, and patient visits to health care settings are limited to reduce exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Providers must carefully weigh risks and benefits of delivering immunosuppressive therapy during the pandemic. For breast cancer, a key difference is increased use of neoadjuvant systemic therapy due to deferral of many breast surgeries during the pandemic. In some cases, this necessitates increased use of genomic tumor profiling on core biopsy specimens to guide neoadjuvant therapy decisions. Breast cancer treatment during the pandemic requires multidisciplinary input and varies according to stage, tumor biology, comorbidities, age, patient preferences, and available hospital resources. We present here the Johns Hopkins Women's Malignancies Program approach to breast cancer management during the COVID-19 pandemic. We include algorithms based on tumor biology and extent of disease that guide management decisions during the pandemic. These algorithms emphasize medical oncology treatment decisions and demonstrate how we have operationalized the general treatment recommendations during the pandemic proposed by national groups, such as the COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium. Our recommendations can be adapted by other institutions and medical oncology practices in accordance with local conditions and resources. Guidelines such as these will be important as we continue to balance treatment of breast cancer against risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure and infection until approval of a vaccine.