Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 383
Filter
1.
PLoS One ; 18(5): e0286298, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20237870

ABSTRACT

The need for a biological disease risk assessment method to prevent the contagion of these diseases, particularly among healthcare personnel, is crucial. Therefore, this study aimed to develop and validate a biological risk assessment tool for biological agents among hospital personnel under COVID-19 conditions. This cross-sectional study was performed on 301 employees in two hospitals. Firstly, we identified the items affecting the contagion of biological agents. Then, we computed the weight of the items using the Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP) method. We used the identified items and the estimated weights in the next step to develop a predictive equation. The outcome of this tool was the risk score of biological disease contagion. After that, we used the developed method to evaluate the biological risk of the participants. The ROC curve was also used to reveal accuracy of developed method. In this study, 29 items were identified and categorized into five dimensions, including environmental items, ventilation items, job items, equipment-related items, and organizational items. The weights of these dimensions were estimated at 0.172, 0.196, 0.255, 0.233, and 0.144, respectively. The final weight of items was used to develop a predictive equation. The area under ROC curves (AUC) was also calculated as 0.762 (95% CI: 0.704, 0.820) (p<0.001). The tools developed using these items had acceptable diagnostic accuracy for predicting the risk of biological diseases in health care. Therefore, one can apply it in identifying persons exposed to dangerous conditions.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Cross-Sectional Studies , Risk Assessment , Personnel, Hospital , Biological Factors
2.
BMJ Open ; 13(6): e065678, 2023 06 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20232626

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Workplace engagement is associated with several significant positive organisational outcomes. The COVID-19 pandemic has emphasised the importance of workplace engagement, particularly for front-line healthcare workers. Drawing on the conservation of resources theory, this study examines the impact of personal and job resources in a workplace that help in resource conservation for work engagement. In view of the high burnout rates reported among health professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic, this study aims to investigate the impact of perceived organisational support (POS) on work engagement through the mediating effect of well-being and the moderating role of employees' resilience. DESIGN: Time-lagged, cross-sectional, split questionnaire-based survey study. SETTING: Data were gathered from 68 hospitals in Pakistan, of which 45 were public and 23 were private hospitals. PARTICIPANTS AND ANALYSIS: Simple random sampling techniques were used and data were collected from 345 healthcare professionals (ie, doctors, nurses and allied health professionals) using split questionnaires, in two waves with a 3-week interval, with a response rate of 80%. For analysis of data, the study used the PROCESS macro by Hayes. RESULTS: Engagement at work was positively correlated with POS, well-being and resilience. POS significantly predicted work engagement through well-being (ß=0.06, SE=0.02, 95% bias-corrected CI 0.021, 0.10). Further analysis of the strong effect of resilience on subjective well-being shows the significant value of the mediated moderation index (ß=0.06, SE=0.02, 95% bias-corrected CI 0.03, 0.11). CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that well-being may be an important pathway through which healthcare workers' POS may influence work engagement, particularly when their resilience capability is high. To maintain engagement at the workplace, hospital administrators should consider strengthening organisational and individual resources that build a supportive environment to meet the demands of challenging times.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Work Engagement , Humans , Cross-Sectional Studies , Pakistan , Pandemics , Personnel, Hospital , Hospitals, Private
3.
Med Sci Monit Basic Res ; 29: e939514, 2023 May 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20245277

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychological status of anxiety and depression of hospital staff in the designated hospital in the city of Shannan during the COVID-19 pandemic in order to provide a theoretical basis for effective psychological intervention. MATERIAL AND METHODS A cross-sectional survey was performed from September 10 to 16, 2022, by administering an online questionnaire to the hospital staff on duty in the hospital. We collected participants' demographic and general information. The Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) were used to investigate the anxiety and depression of hospital staff. RESULTS Among 267 hospital staff, anxiety was found in 98 individuals, with a prevalence of 36.70%. Depression was found in 170 individuals, with a prevalence of 63.67%. Anxiety combined with depression was found in 84 individuals, with a prevalence of 31.46%. The prevalence of depression was higher in women, Tibetan personnel, hospital staff with primary or lower titles, staff without career establishment, and non-aid Tibetan personnel, and the differences were all statistically significant (P.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Female , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Anxiety/epidemiology , Personnel, Hospital/psychology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Hospitals
4.
Hum Resour Health ; 21(1): 44, 2023 Jun 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20244137

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Psychosocial support programs are a way for hospitals to support the mental health of their staff. However, while support is needed, utilization of support by hospital staff remains low. This study aims to identify reasons for non-use and elements that are important to consider when offering psychosocial support. METHODS: This mixed-method, multiple case study used survey data and in-depth interviews to assess the extent of psychosocial support use, reasons for non-use and perceived important elements regarding the offering of psychosocial support among Dutch hospital staff. The study focused on a time of especially high need, namely the COVID-19 pandemic. Descriptive statistics were used to assess frequency of use among 1514 staff. The constant comparative method was used to analyze answers provided to two open-ended survey questions (n = 274 respondents) and in-depth interviews (n = 37 interviewees). RESULTS: The use of psychosocial support decreased from 8.4% in December 2020 to 3.6% by September 2021. We identified four main reasons for non-use of support: deeming support unnecessary, deeming support unsuitable, being unaware of the availability, or feeling undeserving of support. Furthermore, we uncovered four important elements: offer support structurally after the crisis, adjust support to diverse needs, ensure accessibility and awareness, and an active role for supervisors. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the low use of psychosocial support by hospital staff is shaped by individual, organizational, and support-specific factors. These factors can be targeted to increase use of psychosocial support, whereby it is important to also focus on the wider hospital workforce in addition to frontline staff.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Psychosocial Support Systems , Pandemics , Personnel, Hospital , Hospitals
5.
Mikrobiyol Bul ; 57(2): 238-251, 2023 Apr.
Article in Turkish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2327744

ABSTRACT

This study was aimed to determine the efficacy of homologous (only CoronaVac or only Pfizer-BioNTech) and heterologous (CoronaVac and Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccines during the period when the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant was dominant in Türkiye. Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-2019) infection was confirmed by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction and data on vaccination status against COVID-19 were evaluated during the period of 15 January 2022-1 May 2022 when the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant was dominant among 1854 employees followed in the SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Cohort of Manisa Celal Bayar University (MCBU) Hospital Health Workers. Two separate reference groups were used in the evaluation of vaccine efficacy: those who were never vaccinated and those who received only two doses of CoronaVac. The efficacy of homologous and heterologous vaccine models was evaluated with relative risks and attributable risk percentages. MS Excel, SPSS 23.0 and STATA 14.1 package programs were used for statistical analysis. The mean age of the participants was 36.6 ± 10.0. During the period from January 15th to May 1st 2022, 372 hospital workers were infected with COVID-19. Taking the never vaccinated as the reference group, the most effective model was found to be only the three or more doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech primary vaccination model (85.8%, 95% CI= 40.7-96.6). Models consisting of a single dose of CoronaVac (6.5%, 95% CI= -56.3-44.2) or a single dose of Pfizer-BioNTech (17.7%, 95% CI= -30.2-48.0) booster dose administered after two doses of primary CoronaVac vaccination was not found to be effective against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant. When only two doses of primary CoronaVac vaccination model was taken as the reference group, the model consisting of two doses CoronaVac followed by two Pfizer-BioNTech booster doses was effective as 38.4% (95% CI= 15.4-55.3), whereas three doses of Pfizer-BioNTech booster model was effective as 56.4% (95% CI= 33.9-71.3). To conclude, none of the models other than the homologous or heterologous vaccine models containing at least three doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine were effective compared to those unvaccinated. Compared with those who received only two doses of primary Coronavac, models with at least three doses of Pfizer-BioNTech reminder doses were more effective against the Omicron variant than other models.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Humans , COVID-19 Vaccines , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Universities , COVID-19/prevention & control , Personnel, Hospital
6.
BMC Psychiatry ; 23(1): 313, 2023 05 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2314660

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers who are exposed to coronavirus disease 2019 are psychologically distressed. This study aimed to evaluate the mental health outcomes of hospital workers 2 years after the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 and to identify changes in the stress of hospital workers and predicted risk factors. METHODS: This survey was conducted 2 years after the initial evaluation performed under the first emergency declaration of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic among hospital workers at the same hospital in an ordinance-designated city in Japan from June to July 2022. Sociodemographic data, 19 stress-related question responses, the Impact of Event Scale-Revised, and the Maslach burnout inventory-general survey were collected. Multiple regression models were used to identify factors associated with each of the mental health outcomes 2 years after the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak. RESULTS: We received 719 valid responses. Between 2020 and 2022, hospital workers' anxiety about infection decreased, whereas their exhaustion and workload increased. Multiple regression analysis revealed that 2 years after the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak, nurses and young people were at a higher risk of experiencing stress and burnout due to emotional exhaustion, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to examine the long-term stress of hospital workers measured in Japan. Exhaustion and workload were worsened 2 years into the pandemic. Therefore, health and medical institutions should continuously monitor the physical and psychological health of staff members.


Subject(s)
Burnout, Professional , COVID-19 , Humans , Adolescent , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Personnel, Hospital , Health Personnel/psychology , Disease Outbreaks , Burnout, Professional/epidemiology , Burnout, Professional/psychology , Hospitals
7.
Healthc Q ; 26(1): 45-49, 2023 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2319592

ABSTRACT

The editors of Healthcare Quarterly (HQ) recently had the opportunity to speak with Heather Patterson - emergency physician, photographer and author of the recently released book Shadows and Light (Patterson 2022). Through the photographs she took at Calgary-area hospitals during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Patterson created a poignant record of how the pandemic affected hospital staff, patients and their families. The book has struck a chord with many Canadians as it offers both an honest appraisal of the dreadful toll of the pandemic while also demonstrating the grace and compassion of healthcare workers.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Female , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics/prevention & control , Canada , Health Personnel , Personnel, Hospital , Hospitals
8.
J Hosp Med ; 18(4): 329-336, 2023 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2309389

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The hospitalist workforce has been at the forefront of the pandemic and has been stretched in both clinical and nonclinical domains. We aimed to understand current and future workforce concerns, as well as strategies to cultivate a thriving hospital medicine workforce. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted qualitative, semistructured focus groups with practicing hospitalists via video conferencing (Zoom). Utilizing components from the Brainwriting Premortem Approach, attendees were split into small focus groups and listed their thoughts about workforce issues that hospitalists may encounter in the next 3 years, identifying the highest priority workforce issues for the hospital medicine community. Each small group discussed the most pressing workforce issues. These ideas were then shared across the entire group and ranked. We used rapid qualitative analysis to guide a structured exploration of themes and subthemes. RESULTS: Five focus groups were held with 18 participants from 13 academic institutions. We identified five key areas: (1) support for workforce wellness; (2) staffing and pipeline development to maintain an adequate workforce to match clinical growth; (3) scope of work, including how hospitalist work is defined and whether the clinical skillset should be expanded; (4) commitment to the academic mission in the setting of rapid and unpredictable clinical growth; and (5) alignment between the duties of hospitalists and resources of hospitals. Hospitalists voiced numerous concerns about the future of our workforce. Several domains were identified as high-priority areas of focus to address current and future challenges.


Subject(s)
Hospital Medicine , Hospitalists , Humans , Workforce , Personnel, Hospital , Hospitals, Community
9.
Rev Saude Publica ; 56: 107, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2308462

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To estimate prevalence and factors associated with major depressive episode (MDE), emphasizing occupational aspects, in workers of a public teaching hospital that is a reference for Covid-19 treatment. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out between October and December 2020, after the first peak of the pandemic, interviewing 1,155 workers. The prevalence of MDE was estimated using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) algorithm. Multivariate hierarchical analysis was conducted using Poisson regression to assess associated factors. RESULTS: MDE prevalence was 15.3% (95%CI: 13.3-17.5) and was higher among young, white and female workers, those with a family history of depression, resident professionals, nursing professionals, workers who were exposed to three or more situations of moral dilemma, and those who had to put off a physiological need until later. Having a risk factor for Covid-19, being a smoker and being physically inactive were also positively associated with MDE. CONCLUSIONS: The study points to the considerable prevalence of MDE among tertiary health care workers; reviewing work processes is essential to reduce occupational stress and minimize the effects of the pandemic on mental health, preventing those problems from becoming chronic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Depressive Disorder, Major , Humans , Female , Depressive Disorder, Major/epidemiology , Pandemics , Brazil/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , COVID-19/epidemiology , Personnel, Hospital , Hospitals , Depression/epidemiology
10.
J Hosp Infect ; 136: 118-124, 2023 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2291950

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has drawn attention to the importance of facial (respiratory and eye) protective equipment (FPE). Optimal use of FPE in non-outbreak situations will enable front-line staff, such as emergency department (ED) clinicians, to adapt more rapidly and safely to the increased demands and skills required during an infectious disease outbreak. METHODS: A survey, designed to determine the attitudes, beliefs and knowledge of healthcare workers around the use of FPE for protection against respiratory infections, was distributed to staff in a respiratory ward, an adult ED and a paediatric ED in Sydney, Australia prior to COVID-19. RESULTS: The survey revealed differences between the respiratory ward and the EDs, and between professional groups. ED staff, particularly paediatric clinicians, were less likely than ward staff to use FPE appropriately during routine care. Medical staff were more likely to work outside of infection prevention and control policies. DISCUSSION: The busy, relatively chaotic ED environment presents unique challenges for optimal compliance with safe use of FPE when caring for patients with respiratory symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Building upon the lessons of the pandemic, it is timely to address the specific infection prevention and control needs of the ED environment to improve compliance with the use of FPE during non-outbreak situations.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , Child , COVID-19/prevention & control , Personnel, Hospital , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Health Personnel , Hospitals , Protective Devices , Emergency Service, Hospital , Personal Protective Equipment
11.
PLoS One ; 18(4): e0284512, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2305727

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has emphasised the need to rapidly assess infection risks for healthcare workers within the hospital environment. Using data from the first year of the pandemic, we investigated whether an individual's COVID-19 test result was associated with behavioural markers derived from routinely collected hospital data two weeks prior to a test. The temporal and spatial context of behaviours were important, with the highest risks of infection during the first wave, for staff in contact with a greater number of patients and those with greater levels of activity on floors handling the majority of COVID-19 patients. Infection risks were higher for BAME staff and individuals working more shifts. Night shifts presented higher risks of infection between waves of COVID-19 patients. Our results demonstrate the epidemiological relevance of deriving markers of staff behaviour from electronic records, which extend beyond COVID-19 with applications for other communicable diseases and in supporting pandemic preparedness.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Routinely Collected Health Data , SARS-CoV-2 , Personnel, Hospital , Health Personnel , Hospitals
12.
Front Public Health ; 11: 1050261, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2304919

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has placed additional burden on already strained healthcare systems worldwide, intensifying the responsibility and burden of healthcare workers. Although most hospital staff continued working during this stressful and challenging unprecedented pandemic, differences in the characteristics and attributes were noted between sectors and hospital departments. Israeli healthcare workers are trained and experienced in coping with national emergencies, but the pandemic has exposed variations in staff reactions. Understanding the intrinsic differences between sectors and departments is a key factor in staff and hospital preparedness for unexpected events, better resource utilization for timely interventions to mitigate risk and improve staff wellbeing. Objective: To identify and compare the level of resilience, secondary traumatization and burnout among hospital workers, between different sectors and hospital departments, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Cross-sectional research to assess the resiliency, secondary traumatization and burnout of healthcare workers at a large general public hospital in central Israel. The sample consisted of 655 participants across various hospital units exposed to COVID-19 patients. Results: Emergency department physicians had higher rates of resilience and lower rates of burnout and secondary traumatization than staff in other hospital departments. In contrast, staff from internal medicine departments demonstrated the highest levels of burnout (4.29). Overall, physicians demonstrated higher levels of resilience (7.26) and lower levels of burnout compared to other workers. Conclusion: Identifying resilience characteristics across hospital staff, sectors and departments can guide hospital management in education, preparation and training of healthcare workers for future large-scale health emergencies such as pandemics, natural disasters, and war.


Subject(s)
Burnout, Professional , COVID-19 , Compassion Fatigue , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Israel/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Emergencies , Personnel, Hospital , Burnout, Professional/epidemiology
13.
PLoS One ; 18(3): e0283740, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2275319

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic led to accepting a lot of various protective pandemic management-related measures (PanMan), which may have had a large impact on health care workers (HCWs) but evidence is scarce. We therefore explored the impact of measures during the second wave. We assessed the associations of PanMan with the Quality of Life (QoL) of hospital HCWs. METHODS: We collected data from 215 HCWs (77.7% females, mean age 44.4), who were working at the COVID-related departments of one large hospital in eastern Slovakia via a questionnaire, specifically developed in direct collaboration with them. We assessed PanMan related factors, such as COVID-19 experience, information overload, non-adherence of the public, work stress, barriers and facilitators of health care provision, and QoL related factors, such as impact on family life and activities, housekeeping, relationships with relatives and mental well-being. To analyse the data, we used logistic regression models adjusted for age and gender. RESULTS: PanMan greatly impacted the QoL of HCWs, in particular family life, housekeeping and mental well-being (odds ratio, 6.8-2.2). The most influential PanMan factors were COVID-19 experience (3.6-2.3), work stress (4.1-2.4) and barriers in health care provision (6.8-2.2). Perceiving work stress had a negative impact on all QoL domains, even on relationships with the greatest impact. Conversely, the PanMan factors reducing the negative impact on QoL were training and colleagues' support (0.4-0.1). CONCLUSION: PanMan had a strong negative impact on the QoL of hospital HCWs during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Occupational Stress , Female , Humans , Adult , Male , Quality of Life , Pandemics , Slovakia/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Personnel , Personnel, Hospital
14.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 102(11): e33236, 2023 Mar 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2268212

ABSTRACT

Due to the urgency of controlling the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, coronavirus disease 2019 messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines have been expeditiously approved and introduced in several countries without sufficient evaluation for adverse events. We analyzed adverse events among Korean healthcare workers who received all 3 doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. This survey was conducted among hospital workers of Inha University Hospital who had received the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine for their first, second, third rounds, and using a diary card. The surveyed adverse events included local (redness, edema, and injection site pain) and systemic (fever, fatigue, headache, chill, myalgia, arthralgia, vomiting, diarrhea, pruritis, and urticaria) side effects and were divided into 5 grades (Grade 0 = none - Grade 4 = critical). Based on adverse events reported at least once after any of the 3 doses, the most common systemic adverse reactions were chills and headache (respectively, 62.6%, 62.4%), followed by myalgia (55.3%), arthralgia (53.4%), fatigue (51.6%), pruritus (38.1%), and fever (36.5%). The frequency and duration of adverse events were significantly greater in women (P < .05) than men. Except for redness, pruritus, urticaria, and most adverse reactions had a higher rate of occurrence after the third dose in subjects who also had reactions with the second dose. However, grade 4 adverse events did occur with the third dose in some patients, even if there were no side effects with the first and second doses. Adverse events experienced with the first and second doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in Korean healthcare workers increased the incidence of adverse events at the time of the third dose. On the other hand, grade 4 adverse events could still occur with the third dose even though there were no side effects with the first and second doses.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions , Urticaria , Male , Humans , Female , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Myalgia/epidemiology , Myalgia/etiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Personnel, Hospital , Arthralgia , Fatigue , Fever , Headache/epidemiology , Headache/etiology , Republic of Korea/epidemiology
15.
J Adv Nurs ; 79(6): 2337-2347, 2023 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2243856

ABSTRACT

AIM: This study used California's unique Workplace Violent Incident Reporting System (WVIRS) to describe changes in workplace violence (WV) exposure for hospital-based healthcare workers during the pandemic. DESIGN: Interrupted time series analysis. METHODS: We compared the linear trends in weekly WV incidents reported during the period before the COVID-19 pandemic (7/1/2017-3/20/2020) to the period following California's shutdown (3/21/2020-6/30/2021). We created mixed effects models for incidents reported in emergency departments (EDs) and in other hospital units. We used hospital volume data from the California Department of Health Care Access and Information. RESULTS: A total of 418 hospitals reported 37,561 incidents during the study period. For EDs, the number of reported incidents remained essentially constant, despite a 26% drop in outpatient visits between the first and second quarters of 2020. For other hospital units, weekly incidents initially dropped-parallel to a 13% decrease in inpatient days between the first and second quarters of 2020-but then continued parallel to the trend seen in the pre-COVID period. CONCLUSION: WV persists steadily in California's hospitals. Despite major reductions in patient volume due to COVID-19, weekly reported ED incidents remained essentially unchanged. IMPACT: Surveys and media reported that WV increased during the pandemic, but it has been difficult to measure these changes using a large-scale database. The absolute number of WV incidents did not increase during the pandemic; however, the trend in reported incidents remained constant in the context of dramatic decreases in patient volume. New federal WV prevention legislation is being considered in the U.S. California's experience of implementation should be considered to improve WV reporting and prevention. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: There was no public contribution to this study. The goal of this analysis was to summarize findings from administrative data. The findings presented can inform future discussion of public policy and action.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Workplace Violence , Humans , Interrupted Time Series Analysis , Pandemics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Hospitals , Personnel, Hospital , California/epidemiology , Workplace
16.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 20(4)2023 Feb 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2245452

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 has led to an unprecedented strain on healthcare workers (HCWs). This study aimed to determine the prevalence of burnout in hospital employees during a prolonged pandemic-induced burden on healthcare systems. An online survey among employees of a Czech and Slovak university hospital was conducted between November 2021 and January 2022, approximately when the incidence rates peaked in both countries. The Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey was applied. We obtained 807 completed questionnaires (75.1% from Czech employees, 91.2% from HCWs, 76.2% from women; mean age of 42.1 ± 11 years). Burnout in emotional exhaustion (EE) was found in 53.2%, depersonalization (DP) in 33%, and personal accomplishment (PA) in 47.8% of respondents. In total, 148 (18.3%) participants showed burnout in all dimensions, 184 (22.8%) in two, and 269 (33.3%) in at least one dimension. Burnout in EE and DP (65% and 43.7%) prevailed in physicians compared to other HCWs (48.6% and 28.8%). Respondents from COVID-19-dedicated units achieved burnout in the EE and DP dimensions with higher rates than non-frontline HCWs (58.1% and 40.9% vs. 49.9% and 27.7%). Almost two years of the previous overloading of healthcare services, caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, resulted in the relatively high prevalence of burnout in HCWs, especially in physicians and frontline HCWs.


Subject(s)
Burnout, Professional , COVID-19 , Humans , Female , Adult , Middle Aged , Cross-Sectional Studies , Pandemics , Prevalence , Tertiary Care Centers , COVID-19/epidemiology , Burnout, Professional/epidemiology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Personnel, Hospital
17.
Occup Med (Lond) ; 73(3): 128-132, 2023 Apr 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2222678

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Antibody (Ab) tests for SARS-CoV-2 virus allows for the estimation of incidence, level of exposure and duration of immunity acquired by a previous infection. In health workers, the hospital setting might convey a greater risk of infection. AIMS: To describe the frequency of immunoglobulin G (IgG) Abs (IgG-Abs) to the SARS-CoV-2 virus among workers at a third-level university hospital in Colombia. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we included medical and non-medical personnel with at least one real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)/antigen test between March 2020 and March 2021. In April 2021, an IgG-Ab test against SARS-CoV-2 was conducted for all participants and replicated 2 weeks later in a random sample (10%). The frequency of IgG-Abs is presented based on status (positive/negative) and time elapsed since RT-PCR/antigen test (<3 months, 3-6 months, >6 months). RESULTS: We included 1021 workers (80% women, median age 34 years (interquartile range 28-42), 73% medical personnel, 23% with previous positive RT-PCR/antigen). The overall seroprevalence was 35% (95% CI 31.6-37.4, 35% in medical and 33% in non-medical personnel). For those with a previous positive RT-PCR/antigen test, the seroprevalence was 90% (<3 months), 82% (3-6 months) and 48% (>6 months). In participants with a previous negative RT-PCR/antigen test, the seroprevalence was 17% (<3 months), 21% (3-6 months) and 29% (>6 months). CONCLUSIONS: High IgG-Ab positivity was found in hospital personnel, regardless of work activities. The prevalence of detectable Abs differed by previous RT-PCR/antigen status and time elapsed since the diagnostic test.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Female , Adult , Male , COVID-19/epidemiology , Colombia/epidemiology , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Cross-Sectional Studies , Immunoglobulin G , Health Personnel , Personnel, Hospital , Hospitals
18.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 20(2)2023 Jan 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2215993

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Stress at work and psychosocial risks are a major public health problem. Sophrology and neurolinguistic programming (NLP) have demonstrated benefits in terms of mental, physical and social health, both in the general population and in patients, and both in and out of hospital settings. However, these approaches have never been provided at the hospital for the benefit of health professionals at risk of suffering at work. In general, we aim to demonstrate the effectiveness of a hospital sophrology/NLP intervention for health care professionals at risk of stress-related disorders. The secondary objectives are to study (i) within-group, and (ii) between-group): (1) effects on mental, physical, and social health; (2) persistence of effect; (3) relationships between job perception and mental, physical, and social health; (4) intervention success factors (personality and job perception, attendance and practice, other); (5) effects on other stress biomarkers (other measures of autonomic nervous system activity, DHEAS, cortisol, etc.). METHODS: Our study will be a randomized controlled prospective study (research involving the human person of type 2). The study will be proposed to any health-care workers (HCW) or any non-HCW (NHCW) from a healthcare institution (such as CHU of Clermont-Ferrand, other hospitals, clinics, retirement homes). Participants will benefit from NLP and sophrology interventions at the hospital. For both groups: (i) heart rate variability, skin conductance and saliva biomarkers will be assessed once a week during the intervention period (6 to 8 sophrology sessions) and once by month for the rest of the time; (ii) the short questionnaire will be collected once a week during the whole protocol (1-2 min); (iii) the long questionnaire will be assessed only 5 times: at baseline (M0), month 1 (M1), month 3 (M3), month 5 (M5) and end of the protocol (M7). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol, information and consent form had received the favorable opinion from the Ethics Committee. Notification of the approval of the Ethics Committee was sent to the study sponsor and the competent authority (ANSM). The study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov under the identification number NCT05425511 after the French Ethics Committee's approval. The results will be reported according to the CONSORT guidelines. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY: The psychological questionnaires in this study are self-assessed. It is also possible that responses suffer from variation. For the study, participants need to attend 6 to 8 sophrology sessions and one visit per month for 7 months, which might seem demanding. Therefore, to make sure that participants will complete the protocol, two persons will be fully in charge of the participants' follow-up.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Prospective Studies , Personnel, Hospital , Anxiety , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
19.
Arch Prev Riesgos Labor ; 26(1): 51-53, 2022 12 08.
Article in Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2203777

ABSTRACT

Estimada Sra. Directora: Agradecemos a los doctores Rujittika Mungmunpuntipantip y Viroj Wiwanitkit su interés por nuestra publicación(1) en la carta en la que se subrayan la importancia de los casos asintomáticos de COVID-19 en la evaluación de los efectos de la vacunación anti-SARS-CoV-2(2). Compartimos con ellos que las personas asintomáticas al COVID-19 pueden presentar unos niveles de anticuerpos anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG-S mayores que las personas sin historia previa de COVID-19, y que pueden diferir en las reacciones a la vacunación, considerando que la prevalencia de COVID-19 asintomáticos se ha descrito como elevada(3).  En nuestra cohorte de trabajadores del Hospital General Universitario de Castellón, se detectaron 5 casos de COVID-19 asintomáticos (CA), incluyendo los dos seguimientos realizados(1,4), y 20 casos presentaron síntomas de COVID-19 (CS), con un total de 25 casos con confirmación por el laboratorio, 20 % tasa de asintomáticos (5/25). En la tabla 1 se recogen las características de los CA, CS, y de los participantes que no habían sufrido la enfermedad. Los CA eran más jóvenes que los otros 2 grupos, y la proporción de varones era significativamente mayor (p=0,027). En cuanto a los anticuerpos Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG-S al mes de la vacunación, los niveles de los CS fueron mayores que los de CA, y de los no casos, siendo estos últimos los que tuvieron significativamente menores niveles (p<0,001). Sin embargo, a los 8 meses de la vacunación la caída de IgG-S fue general, y los niveles de IgG-S eran mayores en los CA que en los CS y en los no casos (p<0,001). Los niveles de IgG-S considerados como protectores ? 4160 UA/ml, eran mayores en los CA y CS que el de los no casos (p=0,001). Si bien, el declive era similar en los tres grupos (p=0,084). Los síntomas y los efectos secundarios de las dos dosis de vacuna Pfizer-BioNTech no presentaron diferencias significativas entre los grupos. Estos resultados son coincidentes con númerosos estudios, en los que se constata que los casos de COVID-19 presentan niveles más elevados de IgG-S que las personas que no han sufrido la enfermedad(5), y se apreció que en valores medio no se alcanzaron los niveles de IgG-S protectores. De aquí la importancia de disponer de marcadores más efectivos de la situación de protección de la personas vacunadas tanto si han sufrido la enfermedad como sino. Además de los anticuerpos neutralizantes, la determinación de la inmunidad celular podría ser muy conveniente para conocer los niveles de protección.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , COVID-19/prevention & control , Hospitals, General , Personnel, Hospital , Antibodies , Health Personnel
20.
Vaccine ; 41(6): 1247-1253, 2023 02 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2184283

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Although COVID-19 vaccinations have been available to hospital workers in the U.S. since December 2020, coverage is far from universal, even in groups with patient contact. The aim of this study was to describe COVID-19-related experiences at work and in the personal lives of nurses, allied health workers, and non-clinical staff with patient contact, and to assess whether these experiences relate to COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: Health care workers at a large Midwestern hospital in the U.S. were contacted to participate in an online cross-sectional survey during February 2021. A logistic regression model was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) for vaccination by different experiences, and we assessed mediation through models that also included measures of risk perceptions. RESULTS: Among 366 nurse practitioners / nurse midwives / physician assistant, 1,698 nurses, 1,798 allied health professionals, and 1,307 non-clinical staff with patient contact, the proportions who had received or intended to receive a COVID-19 vaccination were 94 %, 87 %, 82 %, and 88 %, respectively. Working and being physically close to COVID-19 patients was not significantly associated with vaccine intent. Vaccination intent was significantly lower among those with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis vs not (OR = 0.33, 95 % CI: 0.27, 0.40) and higher for those who knew close family members of friends hospitalized or died of COVID-19 (OR = 1.33, 95 % CI: 1.10, 1.60). CONCLUSION: Even when COVID-19 vaccination was available in February 2021, a substantial minority of hospital workers with patient contact did not intend to be vaccinated. Moreover, their experiences working close to COVID-19 patients were not significantly related to vaccination intent. Instead, personal experiences with family members and friends were associated with vaccination intent through changes in risk perceptions. Interventions to increase uptake among hospital workers should emphasize protection of close family members or friends and the severity of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , COVID-19 Testing , Cross-Sectional Studies , COVID-19/prevention & control , Personnel, Hospital , Health Personnel , Vaccination , Hospitals
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL