ABSTRACT
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic had posed huge challenges to junior doctors as they had to work as frontline health workers during this emergency. Objectives: To evaluate the mental health status of junior doctors during the present pandemic using Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21) and impact of even scale-revised (IES-R) scale scores. Methods and Participants: This longitudinal study was conducted over a time period of 8 months after taking Institutional Ethical Clearance and informed consent of 220 participants. This online survey was conducted using Google Forms and DASS-21 and IES-R scores were evaluated twice in an interval of 6 months. Results: Depression scores, anxiety scores, and stress scores were significantly increased on the second assessment. Gradation of depression, anxiety, and stress in month 1 among participants were as follows: Depression scores (normal;mild;moderate;severe;extremely severe): 82;40;52;33;13. Anxiety scores (normal;mild;moderate;severe;extremely severe): 113;21;55;16;15. Stress scores (normal;mild;moderate;severe;extremely severe): 137;33;41;8;1. ISE-R scores: <24 = 98;24-32 = 39;33-36 = 15;≥37 = 68. Gradation of depression, anxiety, and stress in month 6 were the following: Depression scores (normal;mild;moderate;severe;extremely severe): 50;19;63;26;62. Anxiety scores (normal;mild;moderate;severe;extremely severe): 34;5;67;25;89. Stress scores (normal;mild;moderate;severe;extremely severe): 61;12;42;38;67. ISE-R Scores: <24 = 73;24-32 = 34;33-36 = 11;≥37 = 102. Conclusions: Junior doctors working during the COVID-19 pandemic developed increased levels of stress, anxiety, and depression with the progression of the pandemic. They were the major frontline health workers to combat COVID-19 which may be the cause of their decreased psychological resilience resulting in mental health issues. Psychological counseling sessions can be used among these young doctors to build up their mental resilience. © 2022 by the Author(s).
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Family centered care is a core value adopted by most healthcare providers (HCPs) working in North American PICUs. Restricted family presence (RFP) policies adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic threatened this value, with the potential for significant impact. This study explores how implementing and enforcing RFP policies impacted bedside HCPs in PICUs. METHOD(S): We conducted a national, online, selfadministered cross-sectional survey of bedside HCPs from all 19 Canadian PICUs about their experience with RFP. The Impact of Event Scale (IES), an existing validated scale, was included as a survey instrument. Prior to completing the scale, respondents were asked to describe the impactful experience(s) that they planned to reference. The resulting free-text responses were inductively coded for emergent themes, which were discussed for consensus. RESULT(S): 146/388 survey respondents completed the IES (94% English speaking;62% RN, 18% MD, 15% RT;87% self-identified women). Six themes related to impactful situations or events emerged from the event descriptions: 1. Concern about the impact on the patient and family (n=57);2. Non-family centered end-of-life situations (n=43, including 5 who reported family members unable to be present for a death);3. Separating families and denying access (n=36);4. The general, overall experience (n=25), a subtheme of which was "RFP was a positive or neutral experience" (n=13);5. Policies and enforcement felt unjust and unfair (n=23);and 6. Family member non-compliance and aggressive reactions (n=15). CONCLUSION(S): Bedside HCPs experienced multiple impactful, potentially trauma-inducing situations related to RFP.