ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on fire service safety culture, behavior and morale, levers of well-being, and well-being outcomes. METHODS: Two samples (Stress and Violence against fire-based EMS Responders [SAVER], consisting of 3 metropolitan departments, and Fire service Organizational Culture of Safety [FOCUS], a geographically stratified random sample of 17 departments) were assessed monthly from May to October 2020. Fire department-specific and pooled scores were calculated. Linear regression was used to model trends. RESULTS: We observed concerningly low and decreasing scores on management commitment to safety, leadership communication, supervisor sensegiving, and decision-making. We observed increasing and concerning scores for burnout, intent to leave the profession, and percentage at high risk for anxiety and depression. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that organizational attributes remained generally stable but low during the pandemic and impacted well-being outcomes, job satisfaction, and engagement. Improving safety culture can address the mental health burden of this work.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Emergency Medical Services , Emergency Responders , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Mental Health , Job SatisfactionABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The US fire service experienced increased demands due to COVID-19. This qualitative study explored the pandemic's impact on work-life balance and safety. METHODS: Five interviews and 10 focus groups were conducted with 15 fire departments in the COVID-19 RAPID Mental Health Assessment. Coding and multilevel content analysis were conducted in NVivo. RESULTS: Four department support themes were identified: emotional/social (33.1%), policy (28.4%), instrumental (22.9%), and informational (15.5%). Four work-life balance themes were identified: life (51.2%), children (18.1%), physiological (16.5%), and work (14.2%). We observed more departmental resources to help mitigate job demands within the work environment compared with those for work-life demands. CONCLUSIONS: Job resources are needed to mitigate demands and improve safety culture and mental well-being of the fire service under normal conditions, and for the next pandemic, natural disaster, or long-term emergency.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Child , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Mental Health , Emotions , Focus Groups , Qualitative Research , Job SatisfactionABSTRACT
Various job demands continuously threaten Emergency Medical Service (EMS) first responders' safety and wellbeing. Drawing on Job Demands-Resources Theory, the present study examines the effects of the organizational context-safety climate-and the psychological context-emotional exhaustion-on safety behaviors and wellbeing over time. We tested our hypotheses in a longitudinal study of 208 EMS first responders nested within 45 stations from three fire departments in US metropolitan areas over 6 months during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Multilevel modeling showed that the relationship between safety climate and safety compliance behaviors can be attenuated when EMS first responders experience high emotional exhaustion. Emotional exhaustion was also negatively associated with morale while safety climate was positively associated with morale. Additionally, EMS first responders experienced increased depression when their emotional exhaustion levels were high. Higher safety climate was associated with decreased depression when emotional exhaustion was within a low-to-medium range. Higher safety climate was also associated with lower absolute levels of depression across the entire range of emotional exhaustion. These findings suggest that promoting safety climate and mitigating emotional exhaustion can augment EMS first responders' safety behaviors and wellbeing.].
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To understand the transmission dynamics of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in a hospital outbreak to inform infection control actions. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: General medical and elderly inpatient wards in a hospital in England. METHODS: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients were classified as community or healthcare associated by time from admission to onset or positivity using European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control definitions. COVID-19 symptoms were classified as asymptomatic, nonrespiratory, or respiratory. Infectiousness was calculated from 2 days prior to 14 days after symptom onset or positive test. Cases were defined as healthcare-associated COVID-19 when infection was acquired from the wards under investigation. COVID-19 exposures were calculated based on symptoms and bed proximity to an infectious patient. Risk ratios and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were calculated from univariable and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 153 patients, 65 were COVID-19 patients and 45 of these were healthcare-associated cases. Exposure to a COVID-19 patient with respiratory symptoms was associated with healthcare-associated infection irrespective of proximity (aOR, 3.81; 95% CI, 1.6.3-8.87). Nonrespiratory exposure was only significant within 2.5 m (aOR, 5.21; 95% CI, 1.15-23.48). A small increase in risk ratio was observed for exposure to a respiratory patient for >1 day compared to 1 day from 2.04 (95% CI, 0.99-4.22) to 2.36 (95% CI, 1.44-3.88). CONCLUSIONS: Respiratory exposure anywhere within a 4-bed bay was a risk, whereas nonrespiratory exposure required bed distance ≤2.5 m. Standard infection control measures required beds to be >2 m apart. Our findings suggest that this may be insufficient to stop SARS-CoV-2 transmission. We recommend improving cohorting and further studies into bed distance and transmission factors.