Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
Traumatology ; : No Pagination Specified, 2021.
Article in English | APA PsycInfo | ID: covidwho-1467076

ABSTRACT

Nurses working on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic are at inherent risk of traumatic stress working in understaffed, poorly equipped, high acuity environments. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) may develop following exposure to trauma or stress associated with depressive symptoms, flashbacks, and mood disturbance. The purpose of this study was to assess the prevalence of traumatic stress among American frontline nurses following the initial COVID-19 surge in the United States during March 2020 using the Trauma Screening Questionnaire. This cross-sectional survey study was distributed via social media in May 2021 following the initial COVID-19 surge. The (TSQ) was selected for its strong psychometric performance in previous studies and high clinical reliability in detecting those at risk for PTSD. Results: Out of the 298 acute care nurses practicing in the United States who participated in the survey, 58.7% had a positive score of greater than 6 indicating the risk of PTSD. Front line nurses who provided care during the initial COVID-19 surge reported high levels of traumatic stress and demonstrated the risk of developing PTSD as measured by the TSQ. Health systems that employ frontline nurses must increase screening for mental health ramifications during the global pandemic. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)

2.
JCO Oncol Pract ; 18(1): e60-e71, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1403282

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Provider well-being has become the fourth pillar of the quadruple aim for providing quality care. Exacerbated by the global COVID-19 pandemic, provider well-being has become a critical issue for health care systems worldwide. We describe the prevalence and key system-level drivers of burnout in oncologists in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional survey study conducted in November-December 2019 of practicing cancer care physicians (surgical, medical, radiation, gynecologic oncology, and hematology) in Ontario, Canada. Ontario is Canada's largest province (with a population of 14.5 million), and has a single-payer publicly funded cancer system. The primary outcome was burnout experience assessed through the Maslach Burnout Inventory. RESULTS: A total of 418 physicians completed the questionnaire (response rate was 44% among confirmed oncologists). Seventy-three percent (n = 264 of 362) of oncologists had symptoms of burnout (high emotional exhaustion and/or depersonalization scores). Significant drivers of burnout identified in multivariable regression modeling included working in a hectic or chaotic atmosphere (odds ratio [OR] = 15.5; 95% CI, 3.4 to 71.5; P < .001), feeling unappreciated on the job (OR = 7.9; 95% CI, 2.9 to 21.3; P < .001), reporting poor or marginal control over workload (OR = 7.9; 95% CI, 2.9 to 21.3; P < .001), and not being comfortable talking to peers about workplace stress (OR = 3.0; 95% CI, 1.1 to 7.9; P < .001). Older age (≥ 56 years) was associated with lower odds of burnout (OR = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.1 to 0.4; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Nearly three quarters of participants met predefined standardized criteria for burnout. This number is striking, given the known impact of burnout on provider mental health, patient safety, and quality of care, and suggests Oncologists in Ontario may be a vulnerable group that warrants attention. Health care changes being driven by the COVID-19 pandemic provide an opportunity to rebuild new systems that address drivers of burnout. Creating richer peer-to-peer and leadership engagement opportunities among early- to mid-career individuals may be a worthwhile organizational strategy.


Subject(s)
Burnout, Professional , COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Physicians , Aged , Burnout, Professional/epidemiology , Burnout, Psychological , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Job Satisfaction , Ontario/epidemiology , Pandemics , Prevalence , SARS-CoV-2 , Workplace
3.
J Womens Health (Larchmt) ; 30(7): 918-919, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1254360
4.
Ann Intern Med ; 174(3): 316-325, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-965717

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Little is known about recovery from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) after hospital discharge. OBJECTIVE: To describe the home health recovery of patients with COVID-19 and risk factors associated with rehospitalization or death. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort. SETTING: New York City. PARTICIPANTS: 1409 patients with COVID-19 admitted to home health care (HHC) between 1 April and 15 June 2020 after hospitalization. MEASUREMENTS: Covariates and outcomes were obtained from the mandated OASIS (Outcome and Assessment Information Set). Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of risk factors associated with rehospitalization or death. RESULTS: After an average of 32 days in HHC, 94% of patients were discharged and most achieved statistically significant improvements in symptoms and function. Activity-of-daily-living dependencies decreased from an average of 6 (95% CI, 5.9 to 6.1) to 1.2 (CI, 1.1 to 1.3). Risk for rehospitalization or death was higher for male patients (HR, 1.45 [CI, 1.04 to 2.03]); White patients (HR, 1.74 [CI, 1.22 to 2.47]); and patients with heart failure (HR, 2.12 [CI, 1.41 to 3.19]), diabetes with complications (HR, 1.71 [CI, 1.17 to 2.52]), 2 or more emergency department visits in the past 6 months (HR, 1.78 [CI, 1.21 to 2.62]), pain daily or all the time (HR, 1.46 [CI, 1.05 to 2.05]), cognitive impairment (HR, 1.49 [CI, 1.04 to 2.13]), or functional dependencies (HR, 1.09 [CI, 1.00 to 1.20]). Eleven patients (1%) died, 137 (10%) were rehospitalized, and 23 (2%) remain on service. LIMITATIONS: Care was provided by 1 home health agency. Information on rehospitalization and death after HHC discharge is not available. CONCLUSION: Symptom burden and functional dependence were common at the time of HHC admission but improved for most patients. Comorbid conditions of heart failure and diabetes, as well as characteristics present at admission, identified patients at greatest risk for an adverse event. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: No direct funding.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/therapy , Home Care Services , Patient Discharge , Patient Readmission , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/mortality , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , New York City/epidemiology , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Proportional Hazards Models , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
5.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(31): 1015-1019, 2020 Aug 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-707230

ABSTRACT

On March 24, 2020, the South Dakota Department of Health (SDDOH) was notified of a case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in an employee at a meat processing facility (facility A) and initiated an investigation to isolate the employee and identify and quarantine contacts. On April 2, when 19 cases had been confirmed among facility A employees, enhanced testing for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was implemented, so that any employee with a COVID-19-compatible sign or symptom (e.g., fever, cough, or shortness of breath) could receive a test from a local health care facility. By April 11, 369 COVID-19 cases had been confirmed among facility A employees; on April 12, facility A began a phased closure* and did not reopen during the period of investigation (March 16-April 25, 2020). At the request of SDDOH, a CDC team arrived on April 15 to assist with the investigation. During March 16-April 25, a total of 929 (25.6%) laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases were diagnosed among 3,635 facility A employees. At the outbreak's peak, an average of 67 cases per day occurred. An additional 210 (8.7%) cases were identified among 2,403 contacts of employees with diagnosed COVID-19. Overall, 48 COVID-19 patients were hospitalized, including 39 employees and nine contacts. Two employees died; no contacts died. Attack rates were highest among department-groups where employees tended to work in proximity (i.e., <6 feet [2 meters]) to one another on the production line. Cases among employees and their contacts declined to approximately 10 per day within 7 days of facility closure. SARS-CoV-2 can spread rapidly in meat processing facilities because of the close proximity of workstations and prolonged contact between employees (1,2). Facilities can reduce this risk by implementing a robust mitigation program, including engineering and administrative controls, consistent with published guidelines (1).


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks , Meat-Packing Industry , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , South Dakota/epidemiology , Young Adult
6.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(18)2020 May 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-153541

ABSTRACT

Congregate work and residential locations are at increased risk for infectious disease transmission including respiratory illness outbreaks. SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is primarily spread person to person through respiratory droplets. Nationwide, the meat and poultry processing industry, an essential component of the U.S. food infrastructure, employs approximately 500,000 persons, many of whom work in proximity to other workers (1). Because of reports of initial cases of COVID-19, in some meat processing facilities, states were asked to provide aggregated data concerning the number of meat and poultry processing facilities affected by COVID-19 and the number of workers with COVID-19 in these facilities, including COVID-19-related deaths. Qualitative data gathered by CDC during on-site and remote assessments were analyzed and summarized. During April 9-27, aggregate data on COVID-19 cases among 115 meat or poultry processing facilities in 19 states were reported to CDC. Among these facilities, COVID-19 was diagnosed in 4,913 (approximately 3%) workers, and 20 COVID-19-related deaths were reported. Facility barriers to effective prevention and control of COVID-19 included difficulty distancing workers at least 6 feet (2 meters) from one another (2) and in implementing COVID-19-specific disinfection guidelines.* Among workers, socioeconomic challenges might contribute to working while feeling ill, particularly if there are management practices such as bonuses that incentivize attendance. Methods to decrease transmission within the facility include worker symptom screening programs, policies to discourage working while experiencing symptoms compatible with COVID-19, and social distancing by workers. Source control measures (e.g., the use of cloth face covers) as well as increased disinfection of high-touch surfaces are also important means of preventing SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Mitigation efforts to reduce transmission in the community should also be considered. Many of these measures might also reduce asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission (3). Implementation of these public health strategies will help protect workers from COVID-19 in this industry and assist in preserving the critical meat and poultry production infrastructure (4).


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Disease Outbreaks , Food-Processing Industry , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Animals , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Humans , Meat , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Poultry , United States/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL