ABSTRACT
Background Despite lower rates of illness, morbidity and mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in children during the pandemic, their health and wellbeing has been significantly impacted. Emerging evidence indicates that this includes experiences of hospital-based care for them and their families. As part of a series of multi-site research studies to undertake a rapid appraisal of healthcare workers' perceptions of working during the pandemic, our study focussed on clinical and non-clinical staff perceptions of the impact of COVID-19 on aspects of care delivery, preparedness and staffing which were specific to a specialist children's hospital. Methods This was a qualitative study. Hospital staff were invited to take part in a single telephone interview. Researchers used a qualitative rapid appraisal design. This included a semi-structured interview guide, RREAL Rapid Assessment Procedure (RAP) sheet to share data, audio recording and transcription of interviews, with a framework approach to analysis. Results Thirty-six staff participated representing a wide range of roles within the hospital: 19 (53%) nurses, seven (19%) medical staff, 10 (28%) other staff groups (including radiographers, managers, play staff, schoolteachers, domestic and portering staff, social workers). Three themes related to the impact on children and families were identified: Same Hospital but Different for Everyone, Families Paid the Price and The Digital World. Conclusion Providing care and treatment for children and families changed profoundly during the pandemic, particularly during lockdowns periods. Adaptations to deliver clinical care, play, schooling, and other therapies online were rapidly put into action, however benefits were not universal or always inclusive. The disruption to a central principle of children's hospital care-the presence and involvement of families-was of critical concern to staff. We present perceptions of staff on how changes to the organisation of care delivery within Great Ormond Street Hospital impacted upon children and families.
ABSTRACT
Background In March 2020 and January 2021 Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) staff were redeployed to hospitals in North Central London, to support the care of adult Covid positive in-patients and paediatric services. In addition to providing care for children usually referred to GOSH, the hospital prepared for children who required hospital care who would usually have been admitted to other Paediatric Intensive Care Units across London - units repurposed to provide adult intensive care;and children who would normally receive their care in local hospital paediatric services, many of which were closed as staff were treating adults. Clinical skills training was offered to up-skill non-ward-based staff and provide an update on current techniques utilised in the care of general paediatric patients. Methods Within a wider study to understand healthcare workers' perceptions of care delivery in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, GOSH staff were invited to take part in a single semi-structured interview by telephone. In our sampling strategy, we purposively recruited staff with experience of redeployment. We employed qualitative rapid appraisal design, RREAL Rapid Assessment Procedures (RAP) for early sharing, interpretation and analysis of data, audio recording and transcription of interviews and framework analysis. Results Recruitment and interviews took place between March and November 2021. Thirty-six GOSH staff were recruited, 18 (50%) participants had been redeployed outside the hospital and 4 (11%) within the hospital. We identified six themes which illustrated staff experiences of redeployment. These included (i) drivers and agency;(ii) preparation for redeployment;(iii) working reality;(iv) impact on family life;(v) professional disruption and (vi) personal challenges. Conclusion Redeployment was reported as both challenging and rewarding. More timely confirmation and bespoke training recognising individual skill sets was recommended. Support structures were available with the majority preferring those developed with close colleagues.
ABSTRACT
Background: There are over 15,000 care homes in England, with a total of approximately 450,000 beds. Most residents are older adults, some with dementia, and other residents are people of any age with physical or learning disabilities. Using pulse oximetry in care homes can help the monitoring and care of residents with COVID-19 and other conditions. Objectives: To explore the views of care home staff, and the NHS staff they interact with, with regard to using pulse oximetry with residents, as well as the NHS support provided for using pulse oximetry. Design: We carried out a rapid mixed-methods evaluation of care homes in England, comprising (1) scoping interviews with NHS leaders, care association directors and care home managers, engaging with relevant literature and co-designing the evaluation with a User Involvement Group;(2) an online survey of care homes;(3) interviews with care home managers and staff, and with NHS staff who support care homes, at six purposively selected sites;and (4) synthesis, reporting and dissemination. The study team undertook online meetings and a workshop to thematically synthesise findings, guided by a theoretical framework. Results: We obtained 232 survey responses from 15,362 care homes. Although this was a low (1.5%) response rate, it was expected given exceptional pressures on care home managers and staff at the time of the survey. We conducted 31 interviews at six case study sites. Pulse oximeters were used in many responding care homes before the pandemic and use of pulse oximeters widened during the pandemic. Pulse oximeters are reported by care home managers and staff to provide reassurance to residents and their families, as well as to staff. Using pulse oximeters was usually not challenging for staff and did not add to staff workload or stress levels. Additional support provided through the NHS COVID Oximetry @home programme was welcomed at the care homes receiving it;however, over half of survey respondents were unaware of the programme. In some cases, support from the NHS, including training, was sought but was not always available. Limitations: The survey response rate was low (1.5%) and so findings must be treated with caution. Fewer than the intended number of interviews were completed because of participant unavailability. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, care homes may have been asked to complete numerous other surveys etc., which may have contributed to these limitations. Owing to anonymity, the research team was unable to determine the range of survey respondents across location, financial budget or quality of care. Conclusions: Using pulse oximeters in care homes is considered by managers and staff to have been beneficial to care home residents. Ongoing training opportunities for care home staff in use of pulse oximeters would be beneficial. Escalation processes to and responses from NHS services could be more consistent, alongside promoting the NHS COVID Oximetry @home programme to care homes. Future research: Further research should include the experiences of care home residents and their families, as well as finding out more from an NHS perspective about interactions with care home staff. Research to investigate the cost-effectiveness of pulse oximetry in care homes, and of the NHS COVID Oximetry @home programme of support, would be desirable. © 2022 Sidhu et al.
ABSTRACT
Between October 2020 and January 2021, we conducted three national surveys to track anaesthetic, surgical and critical care activity during the second COVID-19 pandemic wave in the UK. We surveyed all NHS hospitals where surgery is undertaken. Response rates, by round, were 64%, 56% and 51%. Despite important regional variations, the surveys showed increasing systemic pressure on anaesthetic and peri-operative services due to the need to support critical care pandemic demands. During Rounds 1 and 2, approximately one in eight anaesthetic staff were not available for anaesthetic work. Approximately one in five operating theatres were closed and activity fell in those that were open. Some mitigation was achieved by relocation of surgical activity to other locations. Approximately one-quarter of all surgical activity was lost, with paediatric and non-cancer surgery most impacted. During January 2021, the system was largely overwhelmed. Almost one-third of anaesthesia staff were unavailable, 42% of operating theatres were closed, national surgical activity reduced to less than half, including reduced cancer and emergency surgery. Redeployed anaesthesia staff increased the critical care workforce by 125%. Three-quarters of critical care units were so expanded that planned surgery could not be safely resumed. At all times, the greatest resource limitation was staff. Due to lower response rates from the most pressed regions and hospitals, these results may underestimate the true impact. These findings have important implications for understanding what has happened during the COVID-19 pandemic, planning recovery and building a system that will better respond to future waves or new epidemics.