Escalation to intensive care for the older patient. An exploratory qualitative study of patients aged 65 years and older and their next of kin during the COVID-19 pandemic: the ESCALATE study.

BACKGROUND: older people comprise the majority of hospital medical inpatients so decision-making regarding admission of this cohort to the intensive care unit (ICU) is important. ICU can be perceived by clinicians as overly burdensome for patients and loved ones, and long-term impact on quality of life considered unacceptable, effecting potential bias against admitting older people to ICU. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the challenge of selecting those who could most benefit from ICU. OBJECTIVE: this qualitative study aimed to explore the views and recollections of escalation to ICU from older patients (aged ≥ 65 years) and next of kin (NoK) who experienced a COVID-19 ICU admission. SETTING: the main site was a large NHS Trust in London, which experienced a high burden of COVID-19 cases. SUBJECTS: 30 participants, comprising 12 patients, 7 NoK of survivor and 11 NoK of deceased. METHODS: semi-structured interviews with thematic analysis using a framework approach. RESULTS: there were five major themes: inevitability, disconnect, acceptance, implications for future decision-making and unique impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Life was highly valued and ICU perceived to be the only option. Prior understanding of ICU and admission decision-making explanations were limited. Despite benefit of hindsight, having experienced an ICU admission and its consequences, most could not conceptualise thresholds for future acceptable treatment outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: in this study of patients ≥65 years and their NoK experiencing an acute ICU admission, survival was prioritised. Despite the ordeal of an ICU stay and its aftermath, the decision to admit and sequelae were considered acceptable.

Determinants of burnout and other aspects of psychological well-being in healthcare workers during the Covid-19 pandemic: A multinational cross-sectional study.

The Covid-19 pandemic has placed unprecedented pressure on healthcare systems and workers around the world. Such pressures may impact on working conditions, psychological wellbeing and perception of safety. In spite of this, no study has assessed the relationship between safety attitudes and psychological outcomes. Moreover, only limited studies have examined the relationship between personal characteristics and psychological outcomes during Covid-19. From 22nd March 2020 to 18th June 2020, healthcare workers from the United Kingdom, Poland, and Singapore were invited to participate using a self-administered questionnaire comprising the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ), Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) to evaluate safety culture, burnout and anxiety/depression. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine predictors of burnout, anxiety and depression. Of 3,537 healthcare workers who participated in the study, 2,364 (67%) screened positive for burnout, 701 (20%) for anxiety, and 389 (11%) for depression. Significant predictors of burnout included patient-facing roles: doctor (OR 2.10; 95% CI 1.49-2.95), nurse (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.04-1.84), and 'other clinical' (OR 2.02; 95% CI 1.45-2.82); being redeployed (OR 1.27; 95% CI 1.02-1.58), bottom quartile SAQ score (OR 2.43; 95% CI 1.98-2.99), anxiety (OR 4.87; 95% CI 3.92-6.06) and depression (OR 4.06; 95% CI 3.04-5.42). Significant factors inversely correlated with burnout included being tested for SARS-CoV-2 (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.51-0.82) and top quartile SAQ score (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.22-0.40). Significant factors associated with anxiety and depression, included burnout, gender, safety attitudes and job role. Our findings demonstrate a significant burden of burnout, anxiety, and depression amongst healthcare workers. A strong association was seen between SARS-CoV-2 testing, safety attitudes, gender, job role, redeployment and psychological state. These findings highlight the importance of targeted support services for at risk groups and proactive SARS-CoV-2 testing of healthcare workers.

Telehealth in Rehabilitation Psychology and Neuropsychology.

With the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States in March 2020, most ambulatory care environments rapidly pivoted to extensive use to telehealth to protect patients and providers while continuing to provide care. This shift resulted in the expansion of telehealth platforms and workflows. Many behavioral health services can be provided in a telehealth format. The case example in this article illustrates that transition to telehealth is feasible and sustainable. Limitations include preoperative psychological assessments and certain neuropsychological tests requiring material manipulation. Careful consideration of risk factors should be exerted for more vulnerable patient populations.

What Has Been the Impact of Covid-19 on Safety Culture? A Case Study from a Large Metropolitan Healthcare Trust.

Covid-19 has placed an unprecedented demand on healthcare systems worldwide. A positive safety culture is associated with improved patient safety and, in turn, with patient outcomes. To date, no study has evaluated the impact of Covid-19 on safety culture. The Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ) was used to investigate safety culture at a large UK healthcare trust during Covid-19. Findings were compared with baseline data from 2017. Incident reporting from the year preceding the pandemic was also examined. SAQ scores of doctors and "other clinical staff", were relatively higher than the nursing group. During Covid-19, on univariate regression analysis, female gender, age 40-49 years, non-White ethnicity, and nursing job role were all associated with lower SAQ scores. Training and support for redeployment were associated with higher SAQ scores. On multivariate analysis, non-disclosed gender (-0.13), non-disclosed ethnicity (-0.11), nursing role (-0.15), and support (0.29) persisted to a level of significance. A significant decrease (p < 0.003) was seen in error reporting after the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. This is the first study to investigate SAQ during Covid-19. Differences in SAQ scores were observed during Covid-19 between professional groups when compared to baseline. Reductions in incident reporting were also seen. These changes may reflect perception of risk, changes in volume or nature of work. High-quality support for redeployed staff may be associated with improved safety perception during future pandemics.