Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Frontiers in Public Health ; 10, 2022.
Article in English | Web of Science | ID: covidwho-2022927


ObjectiveThe duties, discipline cross-complementation, and work stress of professional staff during the COVID-19 pandemic are analyzed and summarized to provide a scientific basis for workforce allocation and reserve in respect of infectious disease prevention and control in the disease prevention and control (DPC) system. MethodThe cross-sectional survey was made in April-May 2021 on professional staff in the Beijing DPC system by way of typical + cluster sampling. A total of 1,086 staff were surveyed via electronic questionnaire, which was independently designed by the Study Group and involves three dimensions, i.e., General Information, Working Intensity & Satisfaction, and Need for Key Capacity Building. This paper focuses on the former two dimensions: General Information, Working Intensity, and Satisfaction. The information collected is stored in a database built with Microsoft Excel 2010 and analyzed statistically with SPSS 22.0. The results are expressed in absolute quantities and proportions. Assuming that the overload of work stress is brought by incremental duties and cross-discipline tasks, a binary logistic regression model is constructed. ResultsAmong the 1086 staff surveyed, 1032 staff were engaged in COVID-19 prevention and control works, and they can be roughly divided into two groups by their disciplines: Public Health and Preventive Medicine (hereinafter referred to P, 637 staff, as 61.72%) and Non-Public Health and Preventive Medicine (hereinafter referred to N-P, 395 staff, as 38.28%). During the COVID-19 pandemic, the 1,032 staff assumed a total of 2239 duties, that is, 2.17 per person (PP), or 2.45 PP for the P group and 1.72 PP for the N-P group. As to four categories of duties, i.e., Spot Epidemiological Investigation and Sampling, Information Management and Analysis, On-site Disposal, Prevention, Control Guidance, and Publicity, the P group accounts for 76.14, 78.50, 74.74, and 57.66%, respectively, while the N-P group accounts for 23.86, 21.50, 25.26, and 42.34%, respectively. Obviously, the former proportions are higher than the latter proportions. The situation is the opposite of the Sample Detection and Other Works, where the P group accounts for 25.00 and 31.33%, respectively, while the N-P group accounts for 75.00 and 68.67%, respectively. The analysis of work stress reveals that the P group and N-P group have similar proportions in view of full load work stress, being 48.67 and 50.13%, respectively, and the P group shows a proportion of 34.38% in view of overload work stress, apparently higher than the N-P group (24.05%). Moreover, both groups indicate their work stresses are higher than the pre-COVID-19 period levels. According to the analysis of work stress factors, the duty quantity and cross-discipline tasks are statistically positively correlated with the probability of overload work stress. ConclusionThe front-line staff in the DPC system involved in the COVID-19 prevention and control primarily fall in the category of Public Health and Preventive Medicine discipline. The P group assumes the most duties, and the N-P group serves as an important cross-complement. The study results indicate that the prevention and control of same-scale epidemic require the duty post setting at least twice than usual. As to workforce recruitment, allocation, and reserve in respect of the DPC system, two solutions are optional: less addition of P staff, or more addition of N-P staff. A balance between P and N-P staff that enables the personnel composition to accommodate both routine DPC and unexpected epidemic needs to be further discussed.

Chinese Journal of Disease Control and Prevention ; 26(6):696-702, 2022.
Article in Chinese | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1928935


Objective To analyze the work situation of the personnel in Beijing Centers for Disease Prevention and Control during the novel coronavirns disease 2019 (C0VID-19) epidemic,and to provide references for improving the construction of the capital5 s disease control and prevention system. Methods Cross-sectional survey and cluster sanpling methods were used. A total of 422 municipal-level and 664 district-level professional technicians from CDCs who were mainly involved in epidemic prevention and control in Beijing were included in the study. Self-designed questionnaires were used to collect the basic information, work intensity and satisfaction and other data. The statistical description and test analysis were carried out. Results Among professionals, 64. 36% had nornal workload, and 76. 89% had overload during the epidemic prevention and control period. The proportion of disease control personnel expressing dissatisfaction "with the usual salary level "was 54. 51%, and the satisfaction with the professional title promotion w-as mostly at the average level (45. 58%). The proportions of satisfaction with the prevention and control work arrangements and logistical support during the COVID-19 epidemic were 49. 08% and 54. 42%, respectively. Only 21. 73% professionals were satisfied with the temporar w-ork subsidy. From the perspective of population distribution, staffs at the municipal and district levels and in different job positions were mainly dissatisfied with the salar level (all P<0. 05). Most of staffs who undertook different prevention and control responsibilities were satisfied with the work arrangements and logistics support (all P<0. 05), but they w-ere dissatisfied with the temporar work subsidies (H = 27. 076, P = 0. 012). Among the survey respondents, 44.48% had thoughts of resigning. Regardless of the municipal and district levels, different professional titles or positions, the wdllingness to resign was generally high (all P>0. 05). The primar reason for wanting to leave was the low salary level, followed by difficulty in promotion of professional titles and poor development prospects which were also major considerations. Conclusion It is suggested to improve the stability of CDCs staffs and promote the high-quality and sustainable development of the disease control and prevention system by improving the personnel allocation, strengthening the interdisciplinary talent reserve, improving the salary system and optimizing the professional title appointment mechanism.

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society ; 69(SUPPL 1):S50, 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1214877


Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, older adults are missing routine care appointments despite increasing availability of telehealth video visits. We conducted a needs assessment of two Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFE) in Northern California as a first step to improving access to telehealth visits for older community dwelling individuals. Methods: We conducted voluntary surveys of the independent community dwelling adults of two RCFEs. Site A houses residents who are mostly Caucasian and middle and upper middle class. Site B provides subsidized senior housing and serves a large group of residents who are non-English speakers. Surveys ascertained residents' preferred devices as well as comfort level, support, and barriers regarding telephonic and video visits. Results: Of the 700 surveys distributed, 249 surveys were completed and returned (36%). The average age of participants was 84.6 (SD = 6.6) and 77% were female. At site A, 89% of participants had a bachelor's degree or beyond and 99% listed English as their preferred language. At Site B, 43% had a bachelor's degree or beyond, and 13% preferred English while 73% preferred Mandarin. Regarding remote visits, 37% of all participants felt comfortable connecting with their healthcare team through video visits with computer being the most preferred device (23%) followed by smartphone (19%) and iPad/tablet (11%). Regarding perceived barriers, there were substantial differences depending on the site. Participants at Site A reported not knowing how to connect to the platform (24%), not being familiar with the technology (22%), and difficulty hearing (14%) as the top three barriers, whereas for the participants at Site B, the top three barriers were not being able to speak English well (55%), lack of interest in seeing provider outside of clinic (35%), and not knowing how to connect to the platform (35%). Conclusions: Significant barriers exist for older adults in RCFEs with telehealth visits with their care team. The largest barriers include difficulty with technology or using the video visit platform, language barriers, and lack of desire to see provider outside of clinic. Due to site specific differences in reported telemedicine barriers, any intervention to improve access should be tailored to the specific needs of that site.