Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 15 de 15
Filter
1.
Curr Psychol ; 41(2): 1057-1064, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1748411

ABSTRACT

As in the whole world, the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic poses many threats to healthcare workers in our country too, which leads to anxiety in healthcare workers. This study was conducted to explore the anxiety levels of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study is a cross-sectional study. The population consisted of health care workers employed in hospitals in seven regions in Turkey. All volunteer healthcare workers were included in the study, and 356 healthcare workers responded to the questionnaire. The data were collected using the State Anxiety Inventory and a questionnaire created by the researchers using an online questionnaire between 10 May 2020 and 15 May 2020. In the evaluation of the data, mean, standard deviation, percentages, t-test, one-way ANOVA, Pearson correlation, and multiple regression analysis were used. 33% of healthcare workers did not have anxiety, 50% had mild, and 17% had severe anxiety. The anxiety scores of those who were nurses (p < 0.001), who were working in the emergency room (p < 0.001), who were involved in treatment for COVID-19 patients (p = 0.040), who left their homes to prevent transmission to their families and relatives during the pandemic (p = 0.038), and whose working hours had changed (p = 0.036) were found to be significantly higher. It was observed that there was a positive and significant relationship between the fear of death and disease transmission, uncertainty, loneliness, anger, and hopelessness, and anxiety levels in healthcare workers. The main factors that significantly affected the anxiety levels of healthcare workers were male gender, weekly working hours, the presence of chronic diseases, and feelings of anger and uncertainty. In conclusion, during the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare workers experienced some negative emotions, their anxiety levels increased, and they were psychologically affected. Planning psychosocial interventions for healthcare workers in the high-risk group will make significant contributions to the health system.

2.
Ann Acad Med Singap ; 50(4): 315-324, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1257673

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Foreign workers (FWs) on work permit face unique health challenges and potential barriers to healthcare. We aimed to examine the epidemiology, attendance patterns, disposition, and adherence to follow-up, by FWs on work permit to two emergency departments (EDs) in Singapore. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, we included consecutive FWs on work permit who registered at the EDs of two public restructured hospitals from 1 May 2016 to 31 October 2016. Data obtained from electronic medical records included patient demographics, triage acuity, disposition, ED diagnoses and bill information. RESULTS: There were 6,429 individual FWs on work permit who contributed to 7,157 ED visits over the 6-month study period, with male predominance (72.7%, 4672/6429), and median age of 31 (interquartile range 26 to 38) years. A high proportion of these FWs were triaged to low-acuity status compared to the general ED population (66.9% versus 45.9%, P<0.001). Trauma-related injuries contributed to 34.4% of their visits, and were more likely to result in admission compared to non-trauma-related conditions (18.7% vs 15.2%, P<0.001). FWs engaged in shipyard, construction and process industries were more likely to be discharged "against medical advice" (14.8% vs 3.2%, P<0.001), and default their specialist outpatient follow-up (50.1% vs 34.2%, P<0.001) for non-trauma-related conditions compared to trauma-related injuries. CONCLUSION: In Singapore, the EDs of public restructured hospitals provide healthcare safety nets to FWs on work permit. These workers made more low-acuity visits compared to the general population during the study period and may face potential barriers to admission and follow-up.


Subject(s)
Attitude to Health/ethnology , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Emigrants and Immigrants/statistics & numerical data , Triage , Adult , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Retrospective Studies , Singapore/epidemiology
3.
Clin Infect Dis ; 72(11): e835-e843, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1249296

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a rapidly emerging virus causing the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with no known effective prophylaxis. We investigated whether hydroxychloroquine could prevent SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers at high risk of exposure. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of healthcare workers with ongoing exposure to persons with SARS-CoV-2, including those working in emergency departments, intensive care units, COVID-19 hospital wards, and first responders. Participants across the United States and in the Canadian province of Manitoba were randomized to hydroxychloroquine loading dose then 400 mg once or twice weekly for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was confirmed or probable COVID-19-compatible illness. We measured hydroxychloroquine whole-blood concentrations. RESULTS: We enrolled 1483 healthcare workers, of whom 79% reported performing aerosol-generating procedures. The incidence of COVID-19 (laboratory-confirmed or symptomatic compatible illness) was 0.27 events/person-year with once-weekly and 0.28 events/person-year with twice-weekly hydroxychloroquine compared with 0.38 events/person-year with placebo. For once-weekly hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis, the hazard ratio was .72 (95% CI, .44-1.16; P = .18) and for twice-weekly was .74 (95% CI, .46-1.19; P = .22) compared with placebo. Median hydroxychloroquine concentrations in whole blood were 98 ng/mL (IQR, 82-120) with once-weekly and 200 ng/mL (IQR, 159-258) with twice-weekly dosing. Hydroxychloroquine concentrations did not differ between participants who developed COVID-19-compatible illness (154 ng/mL) versus participants without COVID-19 (133 ng/mL; P = .08). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-exposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine once or twice weekly did not significantly reduce laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or COVID-19-compatible illness among healthcare workers. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04328467.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis , COVID-19/drug therapy , Canada , Health Personnel , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Front Psychiatry ; 12: 628898, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1247920

ABSTRACT

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a significant psychological impact on health care workers (HCWs). Therefore, this study inspects the mental health status, behavioral response, and perception among HCWs (nurses, physicians, and medical laboratory workers) during the COVID-19 pandemic in public health care facilities. Methods: A facilities-based cross-sectional study was conducted in July 2020. A simple random sampling technique was used to select study participants. Data were collected by self-report administered questionnaires using Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for depression, General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) for anxiety, Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) for insomnia, Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) for psychological distress, Perceived Threat Scale for perception, and Behavioral Response Inquiry for the behavioral response. Moreover, bivariable and multivariable logistic regressions analysis was used to identify the association between dependent and independent variables at p-value <0.05. Results: A total of 417 (98.6%) HCWs responded to a self-administered questionnaire. The proportion of HCWs who had moderate to severe symptoms of psychological distress, depression, anxiety, and insomnia during the COVID-19 pandemic were 58, 16.3, 30.7, and 15.9%, respectively. Three-fifth of the nurses, medical laboratory professionals (62.2%), and physicians (59.2%) had reported good behavioral responses toward the COVID-19 pandemic. More than three-fifths of the nurses had reported poor perception toward the COVID-19 pandemic. Conversely, 61.2% of physicians and three-fourths (75.5%) of medical laboratory professionals had reported good perception toward the COVID-19 pandemic. Female and married participants, those working in the emergency unit, those with poor behavioral responses, and those with poor perception toward the COVID-19 pandemic were significantly associated with symptoms of psychological distress, depression, anxiety, and insomnia. Conclusions: Psychological impacts among physicians, nurses, and medical laboratory professionals are high during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Ethiopian Federal Ministry of Health should aim to protect all HCWs' psychological well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic with appropriate interventions and accurate information response.

5.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(7)2021 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1160058

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic results in a profound physical and mental burden on healthcare professionals. This study aims to evaluate burnout status and mood disorder of healthcare workers during this period. An online questionnaire was voluntarily answered by eligible adult employees in a COVID-19 specialized medical center. The major analysis included the burnout status and mood disorder. Factors related to more severe mood disorder were also identified. A total of 2029 participants completed the questionnaire. There were 901 (44.4%) and 923 (45.5%) participants with moderate to severe personal and work-related burnout status, respectively. Nurses working in the emergency room (ER), intensive care unit (ICU)/isolation wards, and general wards, as well as those with patient contact, had significantly higher scores for personal burnout, work-related burnout, and mood disorder. This investigation identified 271 participants (13.35%) with moderate to severe mood disorder linked to higher personal/work-related burnout scores and a more advanced burnout status. Univariate analysis revealed that nurses working in the ER and ICU/isolation wards were associated with moderate to severe mood disorder risk factors. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that working in the ER (OR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.14-6.90) was the only independent risk factor. More rest, perquisites, and an adequate supply of personal protection equipment were the most desired assistance from the hospital. Compared with the non-pandemic period (2019), employees working during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020) have higher burnout scores and percentages of severe burnout. In conclusion, this study suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic has had an adverse impact on healthcare professionals. Adequate measures should be adopted as early as possible to support the healthcare system.


Subject(s)
Burnout, Professional , COVID-19 , Adult , Burnout, Professional/epidemiology , Delivery of Health Care , Health Personnel , Humans , Mood Disorders , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
6.
Front Physiol ; 12: 622987, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1154243

ABSTRACT

Upper respiratory viral infections can decrease the sense of smell either by inflammatory restriction of nasal airflow that carries the odorant molecules or through interference in olfactory sensory neuron function. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, triggered by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), worldwide reports of severe smell loss (anosmia/hyposmia) revealed a different type of olfactory dysfunction associated with respiratory virus infection. Since self-reported perception of smell is subjective and SARS-CoV-2 exposure is variable in the general population, we aimed to study a population that would be more homogeneously exposed to the virus. Here, we investigated the prevalence of olfactory loss in frontline health professionals diagnosed with COVID-19 in Brazil, one of the major epicenters of the disease. We also analyzed the rate of olfactory function recovery and the particular characteristics of olfactory deficit in this population. A widely disclosed cross-sectional online survey directed to health care workers was developed by a group of researchers to collect data concerning demographic information, general symptoms, otolaryngological symptoms, comorbidities, and COVID-19 test results. Of the 1,376 health professionals who completed the questionnaire, 795 (57.8%) were working directly with COVID-19 patients, either in intensive care units, emergency rooms, wards, outpatient clinics, or other areas. Five-hundred forty-one (39.3%) participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, and 509 (37%) were not tested. Prevalence of olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19-positive subjects was 83.9% (454 of 541) compared to 12.9% (42 of 326) of those who tested negative and to 14.9% (76 of 509) of those not tested. Olfactory dysfunction incidence was higher in those working in wards, emergency rooms, and intensive care units compared to professionals in outpatient clinics. In general, remission from olfactory symptoms was frequent by the time of responses. Taste disturbances were present in 74.1% of infected participants and were significantly associated with hyposmia. In conclusion, olfactory dysfunction is highly correlated with exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in health care professionals, and remission rates up to 2 weeks are high.

7.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 21(1): 279, 2021 Mar 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1154006

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent public health guidance to reduce the spread of the disease have wide-reaching implications for children's health and wellbeing. Furthermore, paediatric emergency departments (EDs) have rapidly adapted provision of care in response to the pandemic. This qualitative study utilized insight from multidisciplinary frontline staff to understand 1) the changes in paediatric emergency healthcare utilization during COVID-19 2) the experiences of working within the restructured health system. METHODS: Fifteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with frontline staff working in two paediatric EDs and two mixed adult and children EDs. Participants included emergency medicine clinicians (n = 5), nursing managerial staff (n = 6), social workers (n = 2) and nursing staff (n = 2). Thematic Analysis (TA) was applied to the data to identify key themes. RESULTS: The pandemic and public health restrictions have had an adverse impact on children's health and psychosocial wellbeing, compounded by difficulty in accessing primary and community services. The impact may have been more acute for children with disabilities and chronic health conditions and has raised child protection issues for vulnerable children. EDs have shown innovation and agility in the structural and operational changes they have implemented to continue to deliver care to children, however resource limitations and other challenges must be addressed to ensure high quality care delivery and protect the wellbeing of those tasked with delivering this care. CONCLUSIONS: The spread of COVID-19 and subsequent policies to address the pandemic has had wide-reaching implications for children's health and wellbeing. The interruption to health and social care services is manifesting in myriad ways in the ED, such as a rise in psychosocial presentations. As the pandemic continues to progress, policy makers and service providers must ensure the continued provision of essential health and social services, including targeted responses for those with existing conditions.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Child Health , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Health Personnel/psychology , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pediatrics , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/psychology , Child , Humans , Interviews as Topic , Qualitative Research , Quarantine , SARS-CoV-2
8.
BMC Infect Dis ; 21(1): 138, 2021 Feb 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1058246

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Health workers are crucial to the successful implementation of infection prevention and control strategies to limit the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 at healthcare facilities. The aim of our study was to determine SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention and control knowledge and attitudes of frontline health workers in four provinces of South Africa as well as explore some elements of health worker and health facility infection prevention and control practices. METHODS: A cross-sectional study design was utilised. The study population comprised both clinical and non-clinical staff working in casualty departments, outpatient departments, and entrance points of health facilities. A structured self-administered questionnaire was developed using the World Health Organization guidance as the basis for the knowledge questions. COVID-19 protocols were observed during data collection. RESULTS: A total of 286 health workers from 47 health facilities at different levels of care participated in the survey. The mean score on the 10 knowledge items was 6.3 (SD = 1.6). Approximately two-thirds of participants (67.4%) answered six or more questions correctly while less than a quarter of all participants (24.1%) managed to score eight or more. A knowledge score of 8 or more was significantly associated with occupational category (being either a medical doctor or nurse), age (< 40 years) and level of hospital (tertiary level). Only half of participants (50.7%) felt adequately prepared to deal with patients with COVD-19 at the time of the survey. The health workers displaying attitudes that would put themselves or others at risk were in the minority. Only 55.6% of participants had received infection prevention and control training. Some participants indicated they did not have access to medical masks (11.8%) and gloves (9.9%) in their departments. CONCLUSIONS: The attitudes of participants reflected a willingness to engage in appropriate SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention and control practices as well as a commitment to be involved in COVID-19 patient care. Ensuring adequate infection prevention and control training for all staff and universal access to appropriate PPE were identified as key areas that needed to be addressed. Interim and final reports which identified key shortcomings that needed to be addressed were provided to the relevant provincial departments of health.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Health Personnel/psychology , Adolescent , Adult , COVID-19/pathology , COVID-19/virology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , South Africa , Surveys and Questionnaires , Young Adult
9.
Am J Epidemiol ; 190(1): 161-175, 2021 01 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1010326

ABSTRACT

Health-care workers (HCWs) are at the frontline of response to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), being at a higher risk of acquiring the disease and, subsequently, exposing patients and others. Searches of 8 bibliographic databases were performed to systematically review the evidence on the prevalence, risk factors, clinical characteristics, and prognosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among HCWs. A total of 97 studies (all published in 2020) met the inclusion criteria. The estimated prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection from HCWs' samples, using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction and the presence of antibodies, was 11% (95% confidence interval (CI): 7, 15) and 7% (95% CI: 4, 11), respectively. The most frequently affected personnel were nurses (48%, 95% CI: 41, 56), whereas most of the COVID-19-positive medical personnel were working in hospital nonemergency wards during screening (43%, 95% CI: 28, 59). Anosmia, fever, and myalgia were the only symptoms associated with HCW SARS-CoV-2 positivity. Among HCWs positive for COVID-19 by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction, 40% (95% CI: 17, 65) were asymptomatic at time of diagnosis. Finally, severe clinical complications developed in 5% (95% CI: 3, 8) of the COVID-19-positive HCWs, and 0.5% (95% CI: 0.02, 1.3) died. Health-care workers suffer a significant burden from COVID-19, with those working in hospital nonemergency wards and nurses being the most commonly infected personnel.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Global Health , Humans , Prevalence , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Ann Med Psychol (Paris) ; 2021 Jan 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1009285

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: - Health care workers are under a substantial level of psychological impact due to the risk of exposure, workload and moral dilemmas as the nation is on upsurge of COVID-19 cases. Since there are limited research available on this issue from India, we have decided to conduct an online survey to evaluate mental health outcome and professional quality of life among healthcare worker during COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: - From 25th May to 10th June 2020, a web-based (FRONT-LINE COVID) survey was conducted. Impact of event revised (IES-R), Connor-Davidson Resilience scale (CD-RISC) and Professional Quality of life (ProQOL) and Feeling related questions were administered among Healthcare workers from different departments of hospital. RESULTS: - Among the respondents,218 (52.1%) belongs from the low-risk unit and 200 (47.9%) from the 'high-risk unit' including a higher proportion of nurses 191 (45.7%), female 282(67.5%), aged 31-40 years (48.3%), and married 220 (52.6%). Overall female nurses (P=>0.001), doctors (P=0.02) those were working in an emergency unit (P= <0.001) were at greater risk of psychological distress. Middle-aged (31- 40 years) had a higher level of resilience (p=0.02) contrast to this; working in COVID-19 unit was associated with a lower scale of resilience (p=0.009). Resilience and QoL were an important predictor for psychological distress. CONCLUSION: - Results implicate interventions for stress management and social support among medical staff working in the pandemic.


Les travailleurs de la santé subissent un impact psychologique important en raison du risque d'exposition, de la charge de travail et des dilemmes moraux alors que le pays est face à la recrudescence des cas de COVID-19. Puisqu'il y a peu de recherches disponibles sur cette question en Inde, nous avons décidé de mener une enquête en ligne pour évaluer les résultats en matière de santé mentale et la qualité de vie professionnelle des travailleurs de la santé pendant la pandémie de COVID-19. Du 25 mai au 10 juin 2020, une enquête en ligne (FRONT-LINE COVID) a été menée. L'impact de l'événement révisé (IES-R), l'échelle de résilience Connor-Davidson (CD-RISC) et les questions relatives à la qualité de vie professionnelle (ProQOL) et au ressenti ont été administrées aux travailleurs de la santé de différents départements de l'hôpital. Parmi les répondants, 218 (52,1 %) appartiennent à l'unité à faible risque et 200 (47,9 %) à l'unité à haut risque dont une proportion plus élevée d'infirmières : 191 (45,7 %), de femmes : 282 (67,5 %), l'âge : 31-40 ans (48,3 %) et mariés 220 (52,6 %). Dans l'ensemble, les infirmières (P => 0,001), et les médecins (P = 0,02) qui travaillaient dans une unité d'urgence (P = <0,001) étaient plus à risque de détresse psychologique. Les personnes d'âge moyen (31 à 40 ans) avaient un niveau de résilience plus élevé (p = 0,02); travailler dans l'unité COVID-19 était associé à une échelle de résilience plus faible (p = 0,009). La résilience et la qualité de vie étaient un prédicteur important de la détresse psychologique. Les résultats impliquent des interventions de gestion du stress et de soutien social parmi le personnel médical qui lutte contre la pandémie.

11.
S Afr Med J ; 110(11): 1124-1127, 2020 Oct 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-922936

ABSTRACT

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
12.
Brain Nerve ; 72(10): 1067-1072, 2020 Oct.
Article in Japanese | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-869296

ABSTRACT

The global pandemic due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has placed tremendous strain on healthcare services. This review provides guidance to neurologists on the appropriate management of neurological and neurocritical conditions and diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic in the emergency room and the intensive care unit. The guidance is based on official recommendations and manuals that were urgently produced by the international and domestic societies with the contributions of an expert panel including this author.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , COVID-19 , Emergency Service, Hospital , Humans , Intensive Care Units , SARS-CoV-2
13.
Nurs Open ; 2020 Aug 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-725901

ABSTRACT

AIM: To explore an effective personalized training model for nurses working in emergency isolation wards of COVID-19 in a short period. DESIGN: This study is a longitudinal study from 24 January 2020 to 28 February 2020. METHODS: There are 71 nursing staff working in the emergency isolation wards of Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital that participated in this study. The questionnaires were conducted with Likert scale. The operation assessment teachers have received standardized training. The self-rating anxiety scale (SAS) and self-rating depression Scale (SDS) were applied to assess the mental state of nurses. RESULTS: After short-term training, these nurses can handle the emergency tasks in a timely manner. The pass rate of nurse theory and operation assessment is 100%. The 111 suspected patients admitted to the emergency isolation ward have been scientifically diagnosed and treated, the three confirmed patients have received appropriate treatment. No nurses have been infected. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the personalized emergency training mode was feasible in the emergency isolation ward during the COVID-19 epidemic, which rapidly improved the rescue ability of nurses and effectively avoid the occurrence of cross-infection. This mode can provide a valuable reference for the emergency training of nurses in the future.

14.
BMJ Open ; 10(8): e039851, 2020 08 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-714130

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic is putting an unprecedented strain on healthcare systems globally. The psychological impact on frontline doctors of dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic is currently unknown. This longitudinal professional survey aims to understand the evolving and cumulative effects of working during the COVID-19 outbreak on the psychological well-being of doctors working in emergency departments (ED), intensive care units (ICU) and anaesthetics during the pandemic. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a longitudinal questionnaire-based study with three predefined time points spanning the acceleration, peak and deceleration phases of the COVID-19 pandemic.The primary outcomes are psychological distress and post-trauma stress as measured by the General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) and Impact of Events Scale-Revised (IES-R). Data related to personal and professional characteristics will also be collected. Questionnaires will be administered prospectively to all doctors working in ED, ICU and anaesthetics in the UK and Ireland via existing research networks during the sampling period. Data from the questionnaires will be analysed to assess the prevalence and degree of psychological distress and trauma, and the nature of the relationship between personal and professional characteristics and the primary outcomes. Data will be described, analysed and disseminated at each time point; however, the primary endpoint will be psychological distress and trauma at the final time point. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Bath, UK (ref: 4421), and Children's Health Ireland at Crumlin, Ethics Committee. Regulatory approval from the Health Regulation Authority (UK), Health and Care Research Wales (IRAS: 281944).This study is limited by the fact that it focuses on doctors only and is survey based without further qualitative interviews of participants. It is expected this study will provide clear evidence of the psychological impact of COVID-19 on doctors and will allow present and future planning to mitigate against any psychological impact. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10666798.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Medical Staff, Hospital/psychology , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Anesthesia Department, Hospital/organization & administration , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Emergency Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/statistics & numerical data , Intensive Care Units/organization & administration , Ireland/epidemiology , Longitudinal Studies , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Prevalence , Research Design , SARS-CoV-2 , Self Report , Surveys and Questionnaires , United Kingdom/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL