Randomized trial of personalized psychological feedback from a longitudinal online survey and simultaneous evaluation of randomized stepped wedge availability of in-person peer support for hospital staff during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: We tested if automated Personalized Self-Awareness Feedback (PSAF) from an online survey or in-person Peer Resilience Champion support (PRC) reduced emotional exhaustion among hospital workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: Among a single cohort of participating staff from one hospital organization, each intervention was evaluated against a control condition with repeated measures of emotional exhaustion at quarterly intervals for 18 months. PSAF was tested in a randomized controlled trial compared to a no-feedback condition. PRC was tested in a group-randomized stepped-wedge design, comparing individual-level emotional exhaustion before and after availability of the intervention. Main and interactive effects on emotional exhaustion were tested in a linear mixed model. RESULTS: Among 538 staff, there was a small but significant beneficial effect of PSAF over time (p = .01); the difference at individual timepoints was only significant at timepoint three (month six). The effect of PRC over time was non-significant with a trend in the opposite direction to a treatment effect (p = .06). CONCLUSIONS: In a longitudinal assessment, automated feedback about psychological characteristics buffered emotional exhaustion significantly at six months, whereas in-person peer support did not. Providing automated feedback is not resource-intensive and merits further investigation as a method of support.

Enculturating, embedding and investing in fundamental care in an academic health science centre.

AIM: This manuscript aims to provide a discursive description of how one academic health care centre is enculturating, embedding and investing in the fundamental care framework and lessons learned that can serve as a blueprint for other organizations. BACKGROUND: A call to action to focus on fundamental care is not new as the initial Fundamentals of Care (FoC) Framework has been evolving over the last decade through efforts lead by the International Learning Collaborative (ILC). Now more than ever, there is a pressing need for leaders to influence a humane, compassionate evidence-informed approach to the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond by embedding an FoC framework and focusing on fundamental care as part of their academic mandate and daily care practices. DESIGN: This discursive paper delineates an evolving and ongoing enculturation, embeddedness and investment in advancing fundamental care as part of a larger academic practice strategy and quality improvement plan that is evidence-informed and collaborative in nature. METHOD: The action framework (value, talk, do, own and research fundamental care) developed by ILC guides efforts to how the FoC framework was embedded into one academic health science centre's strategic directions, academic practice strategy, professional practice model, quality plan and research and innovation platform. CONCLUSION: An overview of how we leveraged the FoC and ILC Leadership frameworks in our efforts to enculturate, embed and invest in advancing fundamental care and lessons learned that may inform other healthcare organizations in their efforts. IMPACT ON NURSING SCIENCE, PRACTICE OR DISCIPLINARY KNOWLEDGE: Underpinning all of our efforts is the integral value we place on fundamental care to guide how we practice, educate and learn, discover and innovate and lead at x. We shared how we value, talk, do, own and research fundamental care by having it embedded into our strategic directions, academic practice strategy, professional practice model, quality aims and research and innovation platform. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No Patient or Public Contribution.

Focusing on fundamentals of care in an ICU setting during a pandemic.

AIMS: This manuscript aims to describe one acute care hospital's ICU journey during the COVID-19 pandemic and how fundamental care was central to the implementation of team-based models of care. BACKGROUND: Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, team-based and alternative models of care are being employed to manage and address global shortages and surge capacity. Employing these alternate models of care required attention to ensure fundamental care needs of patients were being met. DESIGN/METHOD: The following paper describes an ICU's journey of focusing on the delivery of the fundamentals of care through the implementation of team-based models of care to address the surge in patient care demands experienced in response to our global pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of an evidence-informed approach to optimizing models of care and staffing in the ICU amid the evolving COVID-19 waves in one acute-care hospital is provided. This local approach focused on meeting patients' fundamental care needs throughout the necessary introduction of team-based care models and staffing changes and drew from evolving evidence, the ILC Fundamentals of Care Framework, and regulatory guidance.

Trends in burnout and psychological distress in hospital staff over 12 months of the COVID-19 pandemic: a prospective longitudinal survey.

BACKGROUND: The mental health effects of healthcare work during the COVID-19 pandemic have been substantial, but it is not known how long they will persist. This study aimed to determine if hospital workers' burnout and psychological distress increased monotonically over 1 year, during which waves of case numbers and hospitalizations waxed and waned, or followed some other pattern. METHODS: A prospective longitudinal survey was conducted at four time-points over 1 year in a cohort of 538 hospital workers and learners, which included validated measures of burnout (emotional exhaustion scale of Maslach Burnout Inventory) and psychological distress (K6). Repeated measures ANOVA tested changes over time and differences between subjects by occupational role, age and ethnic group. The direction and magnitude of changes over time were investigated by plotting rates of high scores (using cut-offs) at each time-point compared to case rates of COVID-19 in the city in which the study took place. RESULTS: There were significant effects of occupational role (F = 11.2, p < .001) and age (F = 12.8, p < .001) on emotional exhaustion. The rate of high burnout was highest in nurses, followed by other healthcare professionals, other clinical staff, and lowest in non-clinical staff. Peak rates of high burnout occurred at the second or third measurement point for each occupational group, with lower rates at the fourth measurement point. Similarly to the results for emotional exhaustion, rates of high psychological distress peaked at the spring 2021 measurement point for most occupational groups and were higher in nurses than in other healthcare professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Neither emotional exhaustion nor psychological distress was rising monotonically. Burnout and psychological distress were consistently related to occupational role and were highest in nurses. Although emotional exhaustion improved as the case rate of COVID-19 decreased, rates of high emotional exhaustion in nurses and other healthcare professionals remained higher than was typically measured in hospital-based healthcare workers prior to the pandemic. Ongoing monitoring of healthcare workers' mental health is warranted. Organizational and individual interventions to support healthcare workers continue to be important.

An Academic Health Sciences Centre's Strategy to Enhance Nurse Resilience and Psychological Safety.

The rapid cadence of change and the fear of acquiring and spreading COVID-19 - coupled with moral distress exacerbated by fulfilling one's duty to care under extremely challenging conditions - continue to impact nurses' coping ability, resilience and psychological safety globally (McDougall et al. 2020). This paper provides an overview of how an academic health sciences centre (AHSC) has responded to the evolving waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, we share our context and the strategies we used to build and enhance nurse resilience and psychological safety at the organizational, clinical team and individual levels. This is followed by a description of our nurses' achievements amid the pandemic.

Psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospital workers over time: Relationship to occupational role, living with children and elders, and modifiable factors.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic is expected to have a sustained psychological impact on healthcare workers. We assessed individual characteristics related to changes in emotional exhaustion and psychological distress over time. METHODS: A survey of diverse hospital staff measured emotional exhaustion (Maslach Burnout Inventory) and psychological distress (K6) in Fall 2020 (T1) and Winter 2021 (T2). Relationships between occupational, personal, and psychological variables were assessed using repeated measures ANOVA. RESULTS: Of 539 T1 participants, 484 (89.9%) completed T2. Emotional exhaustion differed by occupational role (F = 7.3, p < .001; greatest in nurses), with increases over time in those with children (F = 8.5, p = .004) or elders (F = 4.0, p = .047). Psychological distress was inversely related to pandemic self-efficacy (F = 110.0, p < .001), with increases over time in those with children (F = 7.0, p = .008). Severe emotional exhaustion occurred in 41.1% (95%CI 36.6-45.4) at T1 and 49.8% (95%CI 45.4-54.2) at T2 (McNemar test p < .001). Psychological distress occurred in 9.7% (95%CI 7.1-12.2) at T1 and 11.6% (95%CI 8.8-14.4) at T2 (McNemar test p = .33). CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare workers' psychological burden is high and rising as the pandemic persists. Ongoing support is warranted, especially for nurses and those with children and elders at home. Modifiable protective factors, restorative sleep and self-efficacy, merit special attention.