Should I stay or should I go? Why nurses are leaving community nursing in the UK.

Worsening working conditions for nursing workforce has seen a massive exodus of staff, particularly in community nursing in the UK. AIM: The study aim was to map working conditions as well as identify differentiating characteristics of community nurses that intend to leave their profession. DESIGN: Eligibility criteria were community nurses working in all 4 UK countries. All data was collected by means of a cross-sectional survey via the largest closed, private community nursing online-forum. Logistic regression was carried out to ascertain the effects of the variables on the intention to leave. RESULTS: The total number of respondents was 533. Findings showed that one in two of all community nurses (≈46%) are reporting job dissatisfaction. Length of unpaid overtime per shift (odds increase by 30% for each hour of overtime), manager support, proportion of permanent staff, team size, shift length, travel mileage, worsened conditions in the last year and overall self-rated working conditions were differentiating factors between those that intended to leave the job. The proportion of permanent staff on the team and perceived lack of support from management best predicted the likelihood of leave rates. Our findings imply that low nurse retention will fuel an even higher exodus because job dissatisfaction is highest on teams with lowest permanent staff ratios. Poor management that is inept at supporting frontline staff means that the fundamental retention issues are exacerbated and will not stop the unprecedented crisis that is predicted to lead to a collapse of care provision in community settings. Nurses play a central role and are 'key' to delivering the much- desired patient-centred care' therefore their well-being and job satisfaction should become a priority for policymakers.

Occupational differences in COVID-19 incidence, severity, and mortality in the United Kingdom: Available data and framework for analyses

There are important differences in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and death depending on occupation. Infections in healthcare workers have received the most attention, and there are clearly increased risks for intensive care unit workers who are caring for COVID-19 patients. However, a number of other occupations may also be at an increased risk, particularly those which involve social care or contact with the public. A large number of data sets are available with the potential to assess occupational risks of COVID-19 incidence, severity, or mortality. We are reviewing these data sets as part of the Partnership for Research in Occupational, Transport, Environmental COVID Transmission (PROTECT) initiative, which is part of the National COVID-19 Core Studies. In this report, we review the data sets available (including the key variables on occupation and potential confounders) for examining occupational differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 incidence, severity and mortality. We also discuss the possible types of analyses of these data sets and the definitions of (occupational) exposure and outcomes. We conclude that none of these data sets are ideal, and all have various strengths and weaknesses. For example, mortality data suffer from problems of coding of COVID-19 deaths, and the deaths (in England and Wales) that have been referred to the coroner are unavailable. On the other hand, testing data is heavily biased in some periods (particularly the first wave) because some occupations (e.g. healthcare workers) were tested more often than the general population. Random population surveys are, in principle, ideal for estimating population prevalence and incidence, but are also affected by non-response. Thus, any analysis of the risks in a particular occupation or sector (e.g. transport), will require a careful analysis and triangulation of findings across the various available data sets.

Moral distress in advanced practice nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Moral distress arises when a person is aware of the right course to take but is prevented from acting on it by institutional constraints. While this concept has been considered by nursing ethicists for many years, it has been particularly associated with the unprecedented healthcare conditions caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. AIM: To investigate the level of moral distress affecting advanced practice nurses (APNs) in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: This was a mixed-methods study in which a bespoke cross-sectional survey was sent to 243 APNs from across the UK who had been recruited to a broader longitudinal cohort study. The survey asked about their experiences, well-being and moral distress. Open-ended questions asked about their concerns regarding the health and well-being of their patients and colleagues. FINDINGS: A total of 97 APNs completed the survey, yielding a 40% response rate. Levels of moral distress were significantly higher among APNs working in secondary care (P=0.026) compared with those working in primary care. All of the respondents expressed concerns about patients due to delayed care and about the mental well-being of their colleagues, particularly those who were redeployed to COVID-19 wards. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused moral and psychological distress for APNs. However, the type of distress and its direct causes varied among these practitioners. Tailored support is required to address moral distress and subsequently improve staff retention.

Development of the nursing associate role in community and primary care settings across England

Why you should read this article: • To understand some of the benefits that the nursing associate role can bring to community and primary care nursing teams • To be aware of the challenges involved in training and embedding nursing associates in community and primary care settings • To recognise the need for clarity on the boundaries and expectations of the nursing associate role in community and primary care settings Nursing associates have been part of the health and social care workforce in England since 2017 and are starting to contribute to managing workforce challenges. However, little is known about the nursing associate role in community and primary care settings. This article provides an overview of what is known about the nursing associate role in community and primary care settings and introduces some emerging findings from recent research. The article identifies some of the benefits that nursing associates can bring to community and primary care nursing teams and some of the challenges involved in training and embedding nursing associates in these sectors of the health and social care workforce.

Addressing current challenges in adult nursing: Describing a virtual Consensus development project methodology.

AIM: This article describes the development and implementation of a virtual Consensus development project to address current challenges in adult nursing care in the UK. DESIGN: This is a Consensus Development Project (CDP). METHODS: The five stages of this CDP were: develop questions (informed by PPI representatives and a documentary review), generate evidence reviews, recruit and orient the lay panel, host Consensus seminars, and consult with panel members and stakeholders. RESULTS: To the best of our knowledge, a CDP has not previously been conducted in a UK nursing context, and this is the first of its kind to be hosted virtually. This article contributes a detailed outline of the Consensus development methodology and constructive commentary to support future Consensus development projects. Learning points include reflections on the impact of hosting this event virtually, the relationship between the project coordinator and chair, and the composition of the lay panel.

Occupational differences in COVID-19 incidence, severity, and mortality in the United Kingdom: Available data and framework for analyses.

There are important differences in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and death depending on occupation. Infections in healthcare workers have received the most attention, and there are clearly increased risks for intensive care unit workers who are caring for COVID-19 patients. However, a number of other occupations may also be at an increased risk, particularly those which involve social care or contact with the public. A large number of data sets are available with the potential to assess occupational risks of COVID-19 incidence, severity, or mortality. We are reviewing these data sets as part of the Partnership for Research in Occupational, Transport, Environmental COVID Transmission (PROTECT) initiative, which is part of the National COVID-19 Core Studies. In this report, we review the data sets available (including the key variables on occupation and potential confounders) for examining occupational differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 incidence, severity and mortality. We also discuss the possible types of analyses of these data sets and the definitions of (occupational) exposure and outcomes. We conclude that none of these data sets are ideal, and all have various strengths and weaknesses. For example, mortality data suffer from problems of coding of COVID-19 deaths, and the deaths (in England and Wales) that have been referred to the coroner are unavailable. On the other hand, testing data is heavily biased in some periods (particularly the first wave) because some occupations (e.g. healthcare workers) were tested more often than the general population. Random population surveys are, in principle, ideal for estimating population prevalence and incidence, but are also affected by non-response. Thus, any analysis of the risks in a particular occupation or sector (e.g. transport), will require a careful analysis and triangulation of findings across the various available data sets.

The impact of COVID-19 on work, training and well-being experiences of nursing associates in England: A cross-sectional survey.

AIM: To explore how the COVID-19 pandemic affected nursing associate work, training and well-being experiences. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. METHODS: A survey of trainee and newly qualified nursing associates was completed in July 2020. Closed responses were analysed using descriptive statistics with inferential comparisons made between community and secondary care settings. Open questions were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Sixty-four participants responded. Over half (53.2%) experienced an increased workload with 24.2% reporting extensions in their role. One third (32.3%) were redeployed, and a quarter (24.2%) did not feel safety concerns were adequately addressed when raised. Those working in the community reported significantly more concerns about staffing (p = .03), working overtime (p = .03), missed care (p = .02) and safety (p = .04). Despite this, many (75.8%) participants felt able to provide the same standards of care. Several spoke about enhanced teamwork, and the majority (96.8%) were not looking to leave their post.

UK advanced practice nurses' experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to understand the experiences of advanced practice nurses (APNs) in the UK during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in relation to safety, shortages and retention. DESIGN: A cross-sectional, mixed-methods survey. SETTING: APNs in any UK setting. PARTICIPANTS: The survey was sent to an existing UK-wide cohort of APNs. 124 APNs responded (51%). RESULTS: UK-based APNs in this study reported shortages of staff (51%) and personal protective equipment (PPE) (68%) during the first 3 months of the coronavirus outbreak. Almost half (47%) had considered leaving their job over the same 3 months. Despite difficulties, there were reports of positive changes to working practice that have enhanced care. CONCLUSION: UK APNs report COVID-19-related shortages in staff and equipment across primary and secondary care and all regions of the UK. Shortages of PPE during a pandemic are known to be a factor in the development of mental health sequelae as well as a risk factor for increased turnover and retention issues. Half of APNs surveyed were considering a change in job. The UK risks a further crisis in staff morale and retention if this is not acknowledged and addressed. APNs also expressed concern about patients not receiving routine care as many specialties closed or reduced working during the crisis. However, there were also many examples of good practice, positive changes and innovation.

Factors that optimise the impact of continuing professional development in nursing: A rapid evidence review.

OBJECTIVES: Continuing professional development is essential for healthcare professionals to maintain and acquire the necessary knowledge and skills to provide person centred, safe and effective care. This is particularly important in the rapidly changing healthcare context of the Covid-19 pandemic. Despite recognition of its importance in the United Kingdom, minimum required hours for re-registration, and related investment, have been small compared to other countries. The aim of this review is to understand the factors that optimise continuing professional development impact for learning, development and improvement in the workplace. DESIGN: A rapid evidence review was undertaken using Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) framework; identifying a research question, developing a search strategy, extracting, collating and summarising the findings. REVIEW METHODS: In addressing the question 'What are the factors that enable or optimise CPD impact for learning, development and improvement in the workplace at the individual, team, organisation and system level?' the British Nursing Index, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, HTA database, King's Fund Library, and Medline databases were searched for key terms. A total of 3790 papers were retrieved and 39 were included. RESULTS: Key factors to optimising the impact of nursing and inter-professional continuing development are; self-motivation, relevance to practice, preference for workplace learning, strong enabling leadership and a positive workplace culture. The findings reveal the interdependence of these important factors in optimising the impact of continuing professional development on person-centred care and outcomes. CONCLUSION: In the current, rapidly changing, healthcare context it is important for educators and managers to understand the factors that enhance the impact of continuing professional development. It is crucial that attention is given to addressing all of the optimising factors in this review to enhance impact. Future studies should seek to measure the value of continuing professional development for people experiencing care, nurses and the wider organisation.