Impact of leadership on the nursing workforce during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to determine how the learning about protective factors from previous pandemics was implemented and the impact of this on nurses' experience. METHODS: Secondary data analysis of semistructured interview transcripts exploring the barriers and facilitators to changes implemented to support the surge of COVID-19 related admissions in wave 1 of the pandemic. Participants represented three-levels of leadership: whole hospital (n=17), division (n=7), ward/department-level (n=8) and individual nurses (n=16). Interviews were analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: Key changes that were implemented in wave 1 reported at whole hospital level included: a new acute staffing level, redeploying nurses, increasing the visibility of nursing leadership, new staff well-being initiatives, new roles created to support families and various training initiatives. Two main themes emerged from the interviews at division, ward/department and individual nurse level: impact of leadership and impact on the delivery of nursing care. CONCLUSIONS: Leadership through a crisis is essential for the protective effect of nurses' emotional well-being. While nursing leadership was made more visible during wave 1 of the pandemic and processes were in place to increase communication, system-level challenges resulting in negative experiences existed. By identifying these challenges, it has been possible to overcome them during wave 2 by employing different leadership styles to support nurse's well-being. Challenges and distress that nurses experience when making moral decisions requires support beyond the pandemic for nurse's well-being. Learning from the pandemic about the impact of leadership in a crisis is important to facilitate recovery and lessen the impact in further outbreaks.

We need to work differently in a crisis: peer-professional leadership to redesign physicians' work.

BACKGROUND: Understanding physician leadership is critical during pandemics and other health crises when formal organisational leaders may be unable to respond expeditiously. This study examined how physician leaders managed to quickly design a new model for acute-care physicians' work, adopted across four large hospitals in a public health authority in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The research employed a qualitative case study methodology, with inductive analysis of interview transcripts and documents. Shortly after a physician work model redesign, we interviewed key informants: the physician leaders and others who participated in or supported the model's development. Participants were chosen based on their leadership role and through snowballing. All those who were approached agreed to participate. RESULTS: A process model describes leadership actions during four phases of work model development (priming, early planning, readying for operations and transition). These actions were: (1) recognising the threat, (2) committing to action, (3) forming and organising, (4) building and relying on relationships, (5) developing supporting processes and (6) designing functions and structure. We offer three additional contributions to knowledge about leadership in a time of crisis: (1) leveraging peer-professional leadership to initiate, formalise and organise change processes, (2) designing a new work model on existing and emerging evidence and (3) building and relying on relationships to unify various actors. CONCLUSIONS: The model of peer-professional leadership can deepen understanding of how to lead professionals. Our findings could assist peer-professional and organisational leaders to encourage quick redesign of professionals' work in response to new phases of the COVID-19 pandemic or other crises.

Minimizing Population Health Loss in Times of Scarce Surgical Capacity During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Crisis and Beyond: A Modeling Study.

OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease 2019 has put unprecedented pressure on healthcare systems worldwide, leading to a reduction of the available healthcare capacity. Our objective was to develop a decision model to estimate the impact of postponing semielective surgical procedures on health, to support prioritization of care from a utilitarian perspective. METHODS: A cohort state-transition model was developed and applied to 43 semielective nonpediatric surgical procedures commonly performed in academic hospitals. Scenarios of delaying surgery from 2 weeks were compared with delaying up to 1 year and no surgery at all. Model parameters were based on registries, scientific literature, and the World Health Organization Global Burden of Disease study. For each surgical procedure, the model estimated the average expected disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) per month of delay. RESULTS: Given the best available evidence, the 2 surgical procedures associated with most DALYs owing to delay were bypass surgery for Fontaine III/IV peripheral arterial disease (0.23 DALY/month, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13-0.36) and transaortic valve implantation (0.15 DALY/month, 95% CI: 0.09-0.24). The 2 surgical procedures with the least DALYs were placing a shunt for dialysis (0.01, 95% CI: 0.005-0.01) and thyroid carcinoma resection (0.01, 95% CI: 0.01-0.02). CONCLUSION: Expected health loss owing to surgical delay can be objectively calculated with our decision model based on best available evidence, which can guide prioritization of surgical procedures to minimize population health loss in times of scarcity. The model results should be placed in the context of different ethical perspectives and combined with capacity management tools to facilitate large-scale implementation.

Acute stroke care during the first phase of COVID-19 pandemic in Norway.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to investigate how the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic affected the hospital stroke management and research in Norway. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All neurological departments with a Stroke Unit in Norway (n = 17) were invited to participate in a questionnaire survey. The study focused on the first lockdown period, and all questions were thus answered in regard to the period between 12 March and 15 April 2020. RESULTS: The responder rate was 94% (16/17). Eighty-one % (13/16) reported that the pandemic affected their department, and 63% (10/16) changed their stroke care pathways. The number of new acute admissions in terms of both strokes and stroke mimics decreased at all 16 departments. Fewer patients received thrombolysis and endovascular treatment, and multidisciplinary stroke rehabilitation services were less available. The mandatory 3 months of follow-up of stroke patients was postponed at 73% of the hospitals. All departments conducting stroke research reported a stop in ongoing projects. CONCLUSION: In Norway, hospital-based stroke care and research were impacted during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, with likely repercussions for patient care and outcomes. In the future, stroke departments will require contingency plans in order to protect the entire stroke treatment chain.

Effect of COVID-19 pandemic on stroke admission rates in a Norwegian population.

OBJECTIVES: There are concerns that public anxiety around COVID-19 discourages patients from seeking medical help. The aim of this study was to see how lockdown due to the pandemic affected the number of admissions of acute stroke. METHODS: All patients discharged from Akershus University Hospital with a diagnosis of transient ischemic attack (TIA) or acute stroke were identified by hospital chart review. January 3 to March 12 was defined as before, and March 13 to April 30 as during lockdown. RESULTS: There were 21.8 admissions/week before and 15.0 admissions/week during the lockdown (P < .01). Patients had on average higher NIHSS during the lockdown than before (5.9 vs. 4.2, P = .041). In the multivariable logistic regression model for ischemic stroke (adjusted for sex, age, living alone and NIHSS ≤ 5), there was an increased OR of 2.05 (95% CI 1.10-3.83, P = .024) for not reaching hospital within 4.5 hours during the lockdown as compared to the period before the lockdown. CONCLUSION: There was a significant reduction in number of admissions for stroke and TIAs during the lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Norway.