A thematic analysis of shared experiences of essential health and support personnel in the COVID-19 pandemic.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Studies have shown that the COVID-19 pandemic has taken a toll on individuals who interact with patients with SARS-CoV-2 but focused largely on clinicians in acute care settings. This qualitative descriptive study aimed to understand the experiences and well-being of essential workers across settings during the pandemic. BACKGROUND: Multiple studies of the well-being of individuals who have cared for patients during the pandemic have included interviews of clinicians from acute care settings and revealed high levels of stress. However, other essential workers have not been included in most of those studies, yet they may also experience stress. METHODS: Individuals who participated in an online study of anxiety, depression, traumatic distress, and insomnia, were invited to provide a free-text comment if they had anything to add. A total of 2,762 essential workers (e.g., nurses, physicians, chaplains, respiratory therapists, emergency medical technicians, housekeeping, and food service staff, etc.) participated in the study with 1,079 (39%) providing text responses. Thematic analysis was used to analyze those responses. RESULTS: Four themes with eight sub-themes were: Facing hopelessness, yet looking for hope; Witnessing frequent death; Experiencing disillusionment and disruption within the healthcare system, and Escalating emotional and physical health problems. CONCLUSIONS: The study revealed major psychological and physical stress among essential workers. Understanding highly stressful experiences during the pandemic is essential to identify strategies that ameliorate stress and prevent its negative consequences. This study adds to the research on the psychological and physical impact of the pandemic on workers, including non-clinical support personnel often overlooked as experiencing major negative effects. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The magnitude of stress among all levels of essential workers suggests the need to develop strategies to prevent or alleviate stress across disciplines and all categories of workers.

Outpatient Treatment of Confirmed COVID-19: Living, Rapid Practice Points From the American College of Physicians (Version 1).

Description: Strategies to manage COVID-19 in the outpatient setting continue to evolve as new data emerge on SARS-CoV-2 variants and the availability of newer treatments. The Scientific Medical Policy Committee (SMPC) of the American College of Physicians (ACP) developed these living, rapid practice points to summarize the best available evidence on the treatment of adults with confirmed COVID-19 in an outpatient setting. These practice points do not evaluate COVID-19 treatments in the inpatient setting or adjunctive COVID-19 treatments in the outpatient setting. Methods: The SMPC developed these living, rapid practice points on the basis of a living, rapid review done by the ACP Center for Evidence Reviews at Cochrane Austria at the University for Continuing Education Krems (Danube University Krems). The SMPC will maintain these practice points as living by monitoring and assessing the impact of new evidence. Practice Point 1: Consider molnupiravir to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting who are within 5 to 7 days of the onset of symptoms and at high risk for progressing to severe disease. Practice Point 2: Consider nirmatrelvir-ritonavir combination therapy to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting who are within 5 days of the onset of symptoms and at high risk for progressing to severe disease. Practice Point 3: Consider remdesivir to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting who are within 7 days of the onset of symptoms and at high risk for progressing to severe disease. Practice Point 4: Do not use azithromycin to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. Practice Point 5: Do not use chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. Practice Point 6: Do not use ivermectin to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. Practice Point 7: Do not use nitazoxanide to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. Practice Point 8: Do not use lopinavir-ritonavir combination therapy to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. Practice Point 9: Do not use casirivimab-imdevimab combination therapy to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting unless it is considered effective against a SARS-CoV-2 variant or subvariant locally in circulation. Practice Point 10: Do not use regdanvimab to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting unless it is considered effective against a SARS-CoV-2 variant or subvariant locally in circulation. Practice Point 11: Do not use sotrovimab to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting unless it is considered effective against a SARS-CoV-2 variant or subvariant locally in circulation. Practice Point 12: Do not use convalescent plasma to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. Practice Point 13: Do not use ciclesonide to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. Practice Point 14: Do not use fluvoxamine to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting.

Vulnerability, loss, and coping experiences of health care workers and first responders during the covid-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic substantially affects health care workers from multiple disciplines, including nurses, physicians, therapists, and first responders. The aims of this study were to 1) explore and describe the experiences of health care workers and first responders working with individuals with COVID-19 infection, and 2) identify the support and strategies that were helpful during their experience. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive study was conducted via online video interviews of 29 health care workers and first responders who agreed to be contacted for an interview. Thematic analysis resulted in three themes and corresponding subthemes. RESULTS: The three overriding themes were 1) experiencing vulnerability, 2) suffering loss and grief, and 3) coping with vulnerability. A sense of vulnerability and high levels of stress were described and affected participants during their professional work as health care workers and first responders as well as their roles in their homes and communities. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The findings indicate the need for effective measures to assist health care workers and first responders to minimize the negative consequences of persistent and severe stress and vulnerability as they care for individuals with COVID-19 and their families.

What Is the Antibody Response and Role in Conferring Natural Immunity After SARS-CoV-2 Infection? Rapid, Living Practice Points From the American College of Physicians (Version 2).

DESCRIPTION: The Scientific Medical Policy Committee (SMPC) of the American College of Physicians (ACP) developed these living, rapid practice points to summarize the current best available evidence on the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection and protection against reinfection with SARS-CoV-2. This is version 2 of the ACP practice points, which serves to update version 1, published on 16 March 2021. These practice points do not evaluate vaccine-acquired immunity or cellular immunity. METHODS: The SMPC developed this version of the living, rapid practice points based on an updated living, rapid, systematic review conducted by the Portland VA Research Foundation and funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. PRACTICE POINT 1: Do not use SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. PRACTICE POINT 2: Do not use SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests to predict the degree or duration of natural immunity conferred by antibodies against reinfection, including natural immunity against different variants. RETIREMENT FROM LIVING STATUS: Although natural immunity remains a topic of scientific interest, this topic is being retired from living status given the availability of effective vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 and widespread recommendations for and prevalence of their use. Currently, vaccination is the best clinical recommendation for preventing infection, reinfection, and serious illness from SARS-CoV-2 and its variants.

Psychological responses of hospital-based nurses working during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States: A cross-sectional study.

Studies show decreased well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially for healthcare providers from Asia. Less is known about the psychological responses of working during the pandemic on hospital-based registered nurses (RNs) in the United States (US). Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to report the well-being of U.S.-based hospital RNs working during the initial acute phase of COVID-19 and compare it with well-being among healthcare workers described in two global meta-analyses. We conducted a cross-sectional survey in May-June 2020 (N = 467). Well-being was measured using the following tools: Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, Patient Health Questionnaire-2 for depressive symptoms, Impact of Events Scale-Revised for traumatic stress, and the Insomnia Severity Index. Compared with global rates from two meta-analyses, US-based RNs reported significantly more traumatic stress (54.6% vs. 11.4% and 21.5%; p < .001) and depressive symptoms (54.6% vs. 31.8% and 21.7%; p < .001). Rates of insomnia were also higher in U.S.-based RNs than in the meta-analysis that reported insomnia (32.4% vs 27.8%; p < .033). Rates of anxiety symptoms among US-based RNs did not differ from that reported in one meta-analysis (37.3% vs. 34.4%), while it was significantly higher in the other (37.3% vs. 22.1%; p < .001). Hospital-based RNs from the US exhibited over twice the rates of trauma and nearly double the rates of depressive symptoms than shown in reports from hospital workers globally during the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. The lasting effects of this distress are unknown and warrant ongoing evaluation and solutions to better support emotional well-being and prevent burnout in the workplace.

The COVID-19 Study of Healthcare and Support Personnel (CHAMPS): Protocol for a Longitudinal Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Early in the development of the COVID-19 pandemic, it was evident that health care workers, first responders, and other essential workers would face significant stress and workplace demands related to equipment shortages and rapidly growing infections in the general population. Although the effects of other sources of stress on health have been documented, the effects of these unique conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic on the long-term health and well-being of the health care workforce are not known. OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 Study of Healthcare and Support Personnel (CHAMPS) was designed to document early and longitudinal effects of the pandemic on the mental and physical health of essential workers engaged in health care. We will investigate mediators and moderators of these effects and evaluate the influence of exposure to stress, including morbidity and mortality, over time. We will also examine the effect of protective factors and resilience on health outcomes. METHODS: The study cohort is a convenience sample recruited nationally through communities, professional organizations, networks, social media, and snowball sampling. Recruitment took place for 13 months to obtain an estimated sample of 2762 adults who provided self-reported information administered on the web through structured questionnaires about their work environment, mental and physical health, and psychosocial factors. Follow-up questionnaires will be administered after 6 months and annually thereafter to ascertain changes in health, well-being, and lifestyle. Participants who consented to be recontacted form the longitudinal cohort and the CHAMPS Registry may be contacted to ascertain their interest in ancillary studies for which they may be eligible. RESULTS: The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board and launched in May 2020, with grants from Travere Therapeutics Inc, McKesson Corporation, anonymous donors, and internal funding from the M. Louise Fitzpatrick College of Nursing at Villanova University. Recruitment ended in June 2021 after enrolling 2762 participants, 1534 of whom agreed to participate in the longitudinal study and the registry as well as to be contacted about eligibility for future studies. CONCLUSIONS: The CHAMPS Study and Registry will enable the acquisition of detailed data on the effects of extended psychosocial and workplace stress on morbidity and mortality and serve as a platform for ancillary studies related to the COVID-19 pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04370821; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04370821. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/30757.

The Development of Living, Rapid Practice Points: Summary of Methods From the Scientific Medical Policy Committee of the American College of Physicians.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Scientific Medical Policy Committee (SMPC) of the American College of Physicians (ACP) began developing "practice points" to provide clinical advice based on the best available evidence for the public, patients, clinicians, and public health professionals. As one of the first organizations in the United States to develop evidence-based clinical guidelines, ACP continues to lead and advance the science of evidence-based medicine by implementing new methods to rapidly publish practice points and maintain them as living advice that regularly assesses and incorporates new evidence. The overarching aim of practice points is to answer targeted key questions for which there is a timely need to synthesize evidence for decision making. The SMPC believes these methods can potentially be adapted to address various clinical and public health topics beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. This article presents an overview of the SMPC's living, rapid practice points development process, which includes a rapid systematic review, use of the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method, use of stringent policies on the disclosure of interests and management of conflicts of interest, incorporating a public (nonclinician) perspective, and maintenance of the documents as living through ongoing surveillance and synthesis of new evidence as it emerges.

What Is the Antibody Response and Role in Conferring Natural Immunity After SARS-CoV-2 Infection? Rapid, Living Practice Points From the American College of Physicians (Version 1).

DESCRIPTION: The widespread availability of SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests raises important questions for clinicians, patients, and public health professionals related to the appropriate use and interpretation of these tests. The Scientific Medical Policy Committee (SMPC) of the American College of Physicians developed these rapid, living practice points to summarize the current and best available evidence on the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection, antibody durability after initial infection with SARS-CoV-2, and antibody protection against reinfection with SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: The SMPC developed these rapid, living practice points based on a rapid and living systematic evidence review done by the Portland VA Research Foundation and funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Ongoing literature surveillance is planned through December 2021. When new studies are identified and a full update of the evidence review is published, the SMPC will assess the new evidence and any effect on the practice points. PRACTICE POINT 1: Do not use SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. PRACTICE POINT 2: Antibody tests can be useful for the purpose of estimating community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. PRACTICE POINT 3: Current evidence is uncertain to predict presence, level, or durability of natural immunity conferred by SARS-CoV-2 antibodies against reinfection (after SARS-CoV-2 infection).