Students involved in the COVID-19 response reported a similar proportion of COVID-19 symptoms or confirmed diagnoses, but lower levels of anxiety, depression and burnout compared with their non-involved peers.
Subject(s)Anxiety/psychology , Burnout, Professional/psychology , COVID-19/therapy , Depression/psychology , Medical Staff, Hospital/psychology , Students, Medical/psychology , Access to Information , Adult , Anxiety/epidemiology , Burnout, Professional/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Depression/epidemiology , Female , Health Status , Humans , Internship and Residency , Male , Medical Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Mental Health , Patient Health Questionnaire , Personal Protective Equipment/supply & distribution , SARS-CoV-2 , Self Report , Students, Medical/statistics & numerical data , Switzerland/epidemiology , Young Adult
OBJECTIVE: Worldwide transmission of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and related morbidity and mortality has presented a global challenge for several reasons. One such underrecognized and unaddressed aspect is the emotional health problems that medical staff have developed during this pandemic. The purpose of this one-month study was to examine anxiety levels and sleep quality of 100 medical staff members who worked in medical clinics treating COVID-19 patients in Saudi hospitals and to investigate the association of both anxiety levels and sleep quality with age, sex, and distinctive demographics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We investigated anxiety levels and sleep quality of 100 medical staff members (age range 20-60 years) who worked in medical clinics treating COVID-19 patients in Saudi hospitals and the association of both anxiety levels and sleep quality with age, sex, and distinctive demographics. Anxiety levels and sleep quality were measured using the Self-Rating Anxiety Scale and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (SAS and PSQI, respectively). RESULTS: A significant increment in anxiety and poor sleep quality was found in medical staff caring for COVID-19 patients. Anxiety levels in females were higher than males; however, poor sleep quality was somewhat higher in males vs. females but did not vary between age groups. Age was significantly negatively correlated with anxiety symptoms; individuals < 40 years old vs. ≥ 40 had more significant anxiety levels. We observed that medical staff with top-level salaries demonstrated a significant correlation (p = 0.028) between poor sleep quality and ill effects vs. those who had lower pay rates. A correlation between income and anxiety was not found. CONCLUSIONS: The higher the probability and intensity of exposure to coronavirus patients, the more noteworthy the danger that medical staff will experience the ill effects of mental issues.
Subject(s)Anxiety/epidemiology , COVID-19/psychology , Medical Staff, Hospital/psychology , Adult , Age Factors , Cross-Sectional Studies , Demography , Female , Humans , Male , Medical Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Middle Aged , Saudi Arabia/epidemiology , Sex Factors , Sleep Quality , Surveys and Questionnaires , Young Adult
INTRODUCTION: the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has negatively impacted countries across the globe. Infected individuals will seek aid at various health care facilities. Many patients will recover without requiring specialised treatment. A significant percentage of infected individuals will need critical care management, which will begin in the emergency department, generally staffed by junior doctors. Junior doctors will need to stabilize, triage and manage these patients prior to referral to specialized units. Above and beyond the usual occupational demands that accompany junior doctors in state facilities, this pandemic will thrust further responsibility on them. The objectives were to describe crisis preparedness of junior doctors in the areas of triage decision-making and critical care management, outside the intensive care unit. METHODS: this is a descriptive, cross-sectional study, utilizing a web-based survey. Junior doctors in South Africa, being doctors in year one or year two of internship and community service, were invited to participate anonymously via various social media platforms. Results: a total of 210 junior doctors across South Africa answered the survey. Junior doctors expressed confidence with knowledge of intubation drugs, to perform intubation and cardiopulmonary arrest resuscitation without supervision. Only 13.3% of respondents expressed comfort with setting and adjusting ventilator settings independently. 57% of participants expressed discomfort with making critical care triage decisions. Ninety-three percent (93%) of participants expressed benefit from a telemedicine intervention. CONCLUSION: junior doctors in South Africa indicate that they are prepared to initiate management of the critically ill patient outside the intensive care unit but remain uncertain in their ability to provide ongoing critical care management. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need to prepare junior doctors with the ability to manage critical care triage and management in emergency rooms. Leveraging of the workforce in South Africa may be potentiated by telemedicine interventions.
Subject(s)COVID-19 , Critical Care/methods , Medical Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Triage/methods , Clinical Competence , Clinical Decision-Making , Critical Illness/therapy , Cross-Sectional Studies , Emergency Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Internship and Residency , South Africa , Surveys and Questionnaires
Sleep problems among frontline medical staff during the COVID-19 epidemic require attention. A total of 249 frontline medical staff who were recruited to support Wuhan completed this cross-sectional study. A web-based questionnaire about insomnia, depression, anxiety, and fatigue was used to assess mental health status. The prevalence of sleep disorders among frontline medical staff was 50.6%. More time spent in Wuhan and a history of insomnia, depression, anxiety, and fatigue were associated with a higher risk of insomnia. People who stayed in Wuhan for a long time with a history of insomnia, depression, anxiety, and fatigue symptoms might be at high risk of insomnia.
Subject(s)Adaptation, Psychological , COVID-19/psychology , Medical Staff, Hospital/psychology , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Sleep Wake Disorders/epidemiology , Adult , China , Comorbidity , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Medical Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Mental Disorders/psychology , SARS-CoV-2 , Sleep Wake Disorders/psychology , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/psychology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Time Factors
OBJECTIVE: Proper hand hygiene is the main measure in the prevention and control of infection associated with healthcare. It describes how the pandemic period of 2020 has influenced the evolution of the degree of compliance with hand hygiene practices in health professionals at the Hospital Universitario Insular de Gran Canaria with respect to previous years. METHODS: Descriptive cross-sectional study of direct observation on compliance with the five moments of hand hygiene in the 2018-2020 period. Adherence is described with the frequency distribution of the different moments in which it was indicated. RESULTS: Total adherence has increased from 42.5% in 2018, to 47.6% in 2019, and 59.2% in 2020 (p <0.05). Total adherence was greater in the moments after contact with the patient (67%) than in the moments before contact (48%). The area with the highest adherence was dialysis (83%). There is a greater adherence in open areas than in hospitalization areas (65% vs 56%). Higher adherence was determined in physicians (73%) and nurses (74%), than in nursing assistants (50%) (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In 2020 there was an increase in adherence to hand hygiene compared to previous years. A higher percentage of adherence was determined in physicians and nurses than in nursing assistants. We consider that the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has played a relevant role in this increase in adherence.
Subject(s)COVID-19/epidemiology , Hand Hygiene/trends , Health Personnel , Pandemics , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cross-Sectional Studies , Hand Hygiene/statistics & numerical data , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Health Personnel/trends , Humans , Medical Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Medical Staff, Hospital/trends , Nursing Assistants/statistics & numerical data , Nursing Assistants/trends , Nursing Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Nursing Staff, Hospital/trends , Spain , Tertiary Care Centers
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has demanded rapid institutional responses to meet the needs of patients and employees in the face of a serious new disease. To support the well-being of frontline staff, a series of debriefing sessions was used to drive a rapid-cycle quality-improvement process. The goals were to confidentially determine personal coping strategies used by staff, provide an opportunity for staff cross-learning, identify what staff needed most, and provide a real-time feedback loop for decision-makers to create rapid changes to support staff safety and coping. Data were collected via sticky notes on flip charts to protect confidentiality. Management reviewed the data daily. Institutional responses to problems identified during debrief sessions were tracked, visualized, addressed, and shared with staff. More than 10% of staff participated over a 2-week period. Feedback influenced institutional decisions to improve staff schedules, transportation, and COVID-19 training.
Subject(s)Adaptation, Psychological , COVID-19/epidemiology , Faith-Based Organizations/statistics & numerical data , Tertiary Healthcare/methods , Tertiary Healthcare/statistics & numerical data , Faith-Based Organizations/standards , Hospitals/standards , Hospitals/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Kenya/epidemiology , Medical Staff, Hospital/education , Medical Staff, Hospital/psychology , Medical Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Quality of Health Care/organization & administration , Quality of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Tertiary Healthcare/standards
Although the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic is lasting for more than 1 year, the exposition risks of health-care providers are still unclear. Available evidence is conflicting. We investigated the prevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in the staff of a large public hospital with multiple sites in the Antwerp region of Belgium. Risk factors for infection were identified by means of a questionnaire and human resource data. We performed hospital-wide serology tests in the weeks following the first epidemic wave (16 March to the end of May 2020) and combined the results with the answers from an individual questionnaire. Overall seroprevalence was 7.6%. We found higher seroprevalences in nurses [10.0%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.9-11.2] than in physicians 6.4% (95% CI 4.6-8.7), paramedical 6.0% (95% CI 4.3-8.0) and administrative staff (2.9%; 95% CI 1.8-4.5). Staff who indicated contact with a confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) colleague had a higher seroprevalence (12.0%; 95% CI 10.7-13.4) than staff who did not (4.2%; 95% CI 3.5-5.0). The same findings were present for contacts in the private setting. Working in general COVID-19 wards, but not in emergency departments or intensive care units, was also a significant risk factor. Since our analysis points in the direction of active SARS-CoV-2 transmission within hospitals, we argue for implementing a stringent hospital-wide testing and contact-tracing policy with special attention to the health care workers employed in general COVID-19 departments. Additional studies are needed to establish the transmission dynamics.
Subject(s)COVID-19/epidemiology , Personnel, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Belgium/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Female , Hospitals/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Medical Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Middle Aged , Nursing Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Risk Factors , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Surveys and Questionnaires , Young Adult
PROBLEM: In accordance with guidelines from the Association of American Medical Colleges, medical schools across the United States suspended clerkships and transitioned preclinical courses online in March 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hospitals and health systems faced significant burdens during this time, particularly in New York City. APPROACH: Third- and fourth-year medical students at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai formed the COVID-19 Student WorkForce to connect students to essential roles in the Mount Sinai Hospital System and support physicians, staff members, researchers, and hospital operations. With the administration's support, the WorkForce grew to include over 530 medical and graduate students. A methodology was developed for clinical students to receive elective credit for these volunteer activities. OUTCOMES: From March 15, 2020, to June 14, 2020, student volunteers recorded 29,602 hours (2,277 hours per week) in 7 different task forces, which operated at 7 different hospitals throughout the health system. Volunteers included students from all years of medical school as well as PhD, master's, and nursing students. The autonomous structure of the COVID-19 Student WorkForce was unique and contributed to its ability to quickly mobilize students to necessary tasks. The group leaders collaborated with other medical schools in the New York City area, sharing best practices and resources and consulting on a variety of topics. NEXT STEPS: Going forward, the COVID-19 Student WorkForce will continue to collaborate with student leaders of other institutions and prevent volunteer burnout; transition select initiatives into structured, precepted student roles for clinical education; and maintain a state of readiness in the event of a second surge of COVID-19 infections in the New York City area.
Subject(s)Burnout, Professional/prevention & control , COVID-19/prevention & control , Civil Defense/organization & administration , Students, Medical/statistics & numerical data , Workforce/organization & administration , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Clinical Clerkship/legislation & jurisprudence , Clinical Clerkship/methods , Education, Distance/legislation & jurisprudence , Education, Distance/methods , Guidelines as Topic , Health Resources , Hospitals , Humans , Medical Staff, Hospital/organization & administration , Medical Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , New York City/epidemiology , Practice Guidelines as Topic , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Schools, Medical/organization & administration , Students, Medical/psychology , Volunteers
Subject(s)Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/epidemiology , Emergency Service, Hospital , Medical Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Nursing Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Serological Testing , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Seroepidemiologic Studies
OBJECTIVE: To explore the relationship between wearing protective masks and goggles and skin injuries in medical staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Researchers conducted a cross-sectional, multicenter online survey. Respondents voluntarily completed the questionnaire on their smartphones. Ordinal and multinomial logistic regressions were used to identify factors related to skin injuries. RESULTS: In total, 1,611 respondents wore protective masks combined with goggles in 145 hospitals in China; 1,281 skin injuries were reported (overall prevalence, 79.5%). Multiple concomitant skin injuries (68.5%) and injuries in four anatomic locations (24.0%) were the most common, followed by injuries in three (22.8%), two (21.7%), and one location (11.0%). Multinomial logistic regression indicated that sweating increased the risk of injuries in one to four anatomic locations (95% confidence interval for odds ratio 16.23-60.02 for one location and 38.22-239.04 for four locations), and wearing an N95 mask combined with goggles and a daily use longer than 4 hours increased the risk of injuries in four locations (95% confidence interval for odds ratio 1.18-5.31 and 1.14-3.93, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of skin injuries among medical staff wearing protective masks combined with goggles was very high. These were mainly device-related pressure injuries, moisture-associated skin damage, and skin tears. The combination of various factors resulted in skin injuries at multiple sites. Preventing and managing sweating should be a focus for medical staff who wear protective masks combined with goggles for more than 4 hours.
Subject(s)COVID-19/prevention & control , Eye Protective Devices/adverse effects , Masks/adverse effects , Medical Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Nursing Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Occupational Injuries/etiology , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Disease Transmission, Infectious/prevention & control , Facial Injuries/etiology , Humans , Internet , Male , Middle Aged , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , Pressure Ulcer/etiology , Sweating
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the impact of a specially designed care bundle on the development of facial pressure injuries (PI) among frontline healthcare workers wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of facial PIs. The secondary outcomes of interest were facial pain while wearing PPE and ease of use of the care bundle. METHODS: This study used a voluntary survey by questionnaire, supplemented by a qualitative analysis of interviews from a small purposive sample that took place in one large Irish hospital over a two-month period in 2020. The hospital was a city-based public university teaching hospital with 800 inpatient beds. The intervention was a care bundle consisting of skin protection, face mask selection, material use, skin inspection, cleansing and hydration developed in line with international best practice guidelines. All staff working in COVID-19 wards, intensive care units and the emergency department in the hospital were given a kitbag containing the elements of the care bundle plus an information pamphlet. Data were collected via a survey and interviews. RESULTS: A total of 114 staff provided feedback on the use of the care bundle. Before using the care bundle 29% (n=33) of the respondents reported developing a facial PI, whereas after using the care bundle only 8% (n=9) of the respondents reported developing a facial PI. The odds ratio (OR) of skin injury development was 4.75 (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.15-10.49; p=0.0001), suggesting that after the care bundle was issued, those who responded to the survey were almost five times less likely to develop a skin injury. Interviews with 14 staff determined that the bundle was easy to use and safe. CONCLUSION: Among those who responded to the survey, the use of the bundle was associated with a reduction in the incidence of skin injury from 29% to 8%, and respondents found the bundle easy to use, safe and effective. As with evidence from the international literature, this study has identified that when skincare is prioritised, and a systematic preventative care bundle approach is adopted, there are clear benefits for the individuals involved.
Subject(s)COVID-19/epidemiology , Facial Injuries/etiology , Medical Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Nursing Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Occupational Injuries/etiology , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , Disease Transmission, Infectious/prevention & control , Facial Injuries/prevention & control , Humans , Masks/adverse effects , Occupational Injuries/prevention & control
OBJECTIVES: Healthcare personnel (HCP) are at an increased risk of acquiring COVID-19 infection especially in resource-restricted healthcare settings, and return to homes unfit for self-isolation, making them apprehensive about COVID-19 duty and transmission risk to their families. We aimed at implementing a novel multidimensional HCP-centric evidence-based, dynamic policy with the objectives to reduce risk of HCP infection, ensure welfare and safety of the HCP and to improve willingness to accept and return to duty. SETTING: Our tertiary care university hospital, with 12 600 HCP, was divided into high-risk, medium-risk and low-risk zones. In the high-risk and medium-risk zones, we organised training, logistic support, postduty HCP welfare and collected feedback, and sent them home after they tested negative for COVID-19. We supervised use of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and kept communication paperless. PARTICIPANTS: We recruited willing low-risk HCP, aged <50 years, with no comorbidities to work in COVID-19 zones. Social distancing, hand hygiene and universal masking were advocated in the low-risk zone. RESULTS: Between 31 March and 20 July 2020, we clinically screened 5553 outpatients, of whom 3012 (54.2%) were COVID-19 suspects managed in the medium-risk zone. Among them, 346 (11.4%) tested COVID-19 positive (57.2% male) and were managed in the high-risk zone with 19 (5.4%) deaths. One (0.08%) of the 1224 HCP in high-risk zone, 6 (0.62%) of 960 HCP in medium-risk zone and 23 (0.18%) of the 12 600 HCP in the low-risk zone tested positive at the end of shift. All the 30 COVID-19-positive HCP have since recovered. This HCP-centric policy resulted in low transmission rates (<1%), ensured satisfaction with training (92%), PPE (90.8%), medical and psychosocial support (79%) and improved acceptance of COVID-19 duty with 54.7% volunteering for re-deployment. CONCLUSION: A multidimensional HCP-centric policy was effective in ensuring safety, satisfaction and welfare of HCP in a resource-poor setting and resulted in a willing workforce to fight the pandemic.
Subject(s)COVID-19 , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional , Medical Staff, Hospital , Occupational Diseases , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19/transmission , Developing Countries , Female , Hospitals, University/organization & administration , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Male , Medical Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Models, Organizational , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control , Organizational Policy , Personal Protective Equipment , Prospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Tertiary Care Centers/organization & administration
BACKGROUND: Doctors commonly continue to work when they are unwell. This norm is increasingly problematic during the COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic when effective infection control measures are of paramount importance. This study investigates the barriers existing before COVID-19 that prevent junior doctors with an acute respiratory illness working in Canberra, Australia, from taking sick leave, and offers suggestions about how to make sick leave more accessible for junior doctors. METHODS: Anonymous online survey study. RESULTS: 192 junior doctors were invited to participate in the study. Fifty-four responded, and only those who had worked whilst unwell with an acute respiratory illness were included, providing a total number of fifty responses. Of these, 72% believed they were infectious at the time they worked whilst unwell. 86% of respondents did not feel supported by the workplace to take sick leave when they were unwell, and 96% identified concerns about burdening colleagues with extra workload and lack of available cover as the main deterrents to accessing sick leave. CONCLUSION: Junior doctors at our health service, pre-COVID-19, do not widely feel empowered to take sick leave when they have an acute respiratory illness. Junior doctors are primarily concerned about burdening their colleagues with extra workloads in an environment where they perceive there to be a lack of available cover. Having more available cover, leadership from seniors, and clearer guidelines around the impact of sick leave on registration may contribute to a culture where junior doctors feel supported to access sick leave.
Subject(s)Attitude of Health Personnel , Medical Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Physicians/statistics & numerical data , Sick Leave/statistics & numerical data , Workload/psychology , Australia , COVID-19 , Humans , Infection Control , Respiratory Tract Infections/physiopathology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Workload/standards , Workload/statistics & numerical data
Medical staff in radiology departments faces a higher risk of infection and a heavier workload during the new coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak. High perceived stress levels endanger physical and mental health and affect work efficiency and patient safety. Therefore, it is urgent to understand the perceived stress levels of medical staff and explore its risk factors. We recruited 600 medical staff from the radiology departments of 32 public hospitals in Sichuan Province, China, to evaluate perceived stress scores via a mobile app-based questionnaire. The results showed that the perceived stress level among medical staff in the radiology departments during the COVID-19 outbreak was high and a sense of tension was strongly present. A positive correlation was found between anxiety score and perceived stress. Multivariate analysis showed that risk factors for perceived stress were female, existing anxiety, and fears of being infected at work, an uncontrollable outbreak, and not being able to pay rent or mortgage. Conversely, good knowledge about COVID-19, being unmarried, and working in a higher-grade hospital were protective factors for perceived stress. Therefore, more attention should be given to medical staff in the radiology departments that present the risk factors outlined above. Timely risk assessment of psychological stress and effective intervention measures should be taken for these high-risk groups to keep their perceived stress within normal limits.
Subject(s)Anxiety/epidemiology , COVID-19 , Fear , Hospitals, Public/statistics & numerical data , Medical Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Occupational Stress/epidemiology , Radiologists/statistics & numerical data , Adult , COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , China/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Risk Factors , Self Report , Workload
Subject(s)COVID-19 , Personal Satisfaction , Personnel, Hospital/psychology , Personnel, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , Allied Health Personnel/psychology , Allied Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/therapy , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Health Surveys , Humans , Male , Medical Staff, Hospital/psychology , Medical Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Middle Aged , Nursing Staff, Hospital/psychology , Nursing Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Qatar
BACKGROUND: The positive impact of physical activity and exercise on health is well known. Individuals who walk at least 10 000 steps per day are likely to meet recommended physical activity guidelines. Very little is known about the physical activity levels of doctors at work, in particular those working in emergency departments (EDs). OBJECTIVES: To determine how many steps per shift were taken by doctors in a South African (SA) ED. Secondary objectives were to assess what factors influenced the number of steps taken. METHODS: This was a prospective observational cohort study in a tertiary academic teaching hospital ED in Johannesburg over a 1-month period. Doctors wore pedometers during their day shifts in the ED and the number of steps taken during their shifts was measured, as well as the number and triage category of patients seen and whether cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was performed. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) number of steps taken per shift was 6 328 (4 646 - 8 409). The number of steps taken exceeded the 10 000-step target in only 11.7% of shifts. The overall mean (standard deviation (SD)) number of steps per hour was 744 (490). Factors that significantly increased the number of steps taken included shift duration, number of patients seen who were triaged yellow, and performance of CPR in a shift. Each additional hour of shift led to a mean (SD) increase of 575 (115) steps. Each additional yellow patient seen led to a mean (SD) increase of 118 (108) steps. The mean (SD) number of steps for a shift with CPR was significantly higher (8 309 (850) steps) than for a shift without CPR (6 496 (384) steps). CONCLUSIONS: Doctors working in an SA ED are not achieving the daily recommended number of steps while at work. The increased risk of ill health and burnout in an already high-risk specialty heightens the importance of exercise and physical activity that needs to be achieved outside the workplace.
Subject(s)Emergency Service, Hospital , Exercise/physiology , Health Status , Medical Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Walking/statistics & numerical data , Actigraphy/methods , Cohort Studies , Female , Health Promotion/methods , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Monitoring, Ambulatory/methods , Prospective Studies , South Africa , Walking/physiology , Workload/statistics & numerical data
Subject(s)COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , Return to Work , Adult , Aged , Anxiety/psychology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/psychology , COVID-19/transmission , Fear , Female , France/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Medical Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Middle Aged , Nursing Assistants/statistics & numerical data , Nursing Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Occupational Diseases/etiology , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control , Occupational Diseases/psychology , Personnel Management , Risk , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires/statistics & numerical data , Young Adult
Subject(s)Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Medical Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Adult , COVID-19 , China , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Symptom Assessment , Young Adult
Objective A pilot study to: (1) describe the ability of emergency physicians to provide primary consults at an Australian, major metropolitan, adult emergency department (ED) during the COVID-19 pandemic when compared with historical performance; and (2) to identify the effect of system and process factors on productivity. Methods A retrospective cross-sectional description of shifts worked between 1 and 29 February 2020, while physicians were carrying out their usual supervision, flow and problem-solving duties, as well as undertaking additional COVID-19 preparation, was documented. Effect of supervisory load, years of Australian registration and departmental flow factors were evaluated. Descriptive statistical methods were used and regression analyses were performed. Results A total of 188 shifts were analysed. Productivity was 4.07 patients per 9.5-h shift (95% CI 3.56-4.58) or 0.43 patients per h, representing a 48.5% reduction from previously published data (P<0.0001). Working in a shift outside of the resuscitation area or working a day shift was associated with a reduction in individual patient load. There was a 2.2% (95% CI: 1.1-3.4, P<0.001) decrease in productivity with each year after obtaining Australian medical registration. There was a 10.6% (95% CI: 5.4-15.6, P<0.001) decrease in productivity for each junior physician supervised. Bed access had no statistically significant effect on productivity. Conclusions Emergency physicians undertake multiple duties. Their ability to manage their own patients varies depending on multiple ED operational factors, particularly their supervisory load. COVID-19 preparations reduced their ability to see their own patients by half. What is known about the topic? An understanding of emergency physician productivity is essential in planning clinical operations. Medical productivity, however, is challenging to define, and is controversial to measure. Although baseline data exist, few studies examine the effect of patient flow and supervision requirements on the emergency physician's ability to perform primary consults. No studies describe these metrics during COVID-19. What does this paper add? This pilot study provides a novel cross-sectional description of the effect of COVID-19 preparations on the ability of emergency physicians to provide direct patient care. It also examines the effect of selected system and process factors in a physician's ability to complete primary consults. What are the implications for practitioners? When managing an emergency medical workforce, the contribution of emergency physicians to the number of patients requiring consults should take into account the high volume of alternative duties required. Increasing alternative duties can decrease primary provider tasks that can be completed. COVID-19 pandemic preparation has significantly reduced the ability of emergency physicians to manage their own patients.
Subject(s)Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Efficiency, Organizational/statistics & numerical data , Emergency Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Emergency Service, Hospital/trends , Medical Staff, Hospital/organization & administration , Patient-Centered Care/organization & administration , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Appointments and Schedules , Australia , Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , COVID-19 , Cross-Sectional Studies , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Female , Forecasting , Humans , Male , Medical Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Medical Staff, Hospital/trends , Middle Aged , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Patient-Centered Care/statistics & numerical data , Pilot Projects , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
Reducing severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections among healthcare workers is critical. We ran Monte Carlo simulations modeling the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in non-COVID-19 wards, and we found that longer nursing shifts and scheduling designs in which teams of nurses and doctors co-rotate no more frequently than every 3 days can lead to fewer infections.