'There was a pivotal moment'. The dynamics, transitions, adaptations and trajectories of nursing at the front-line in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Using qualitative interview data (n = 142 interviews) generated with 50 nurses, over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, this paper traces the trajectories of nurses in the UK and attempts to unpick the interplay between structure and agency in their narratives. Interviews were inductively analysed for themes and an additional narrative analysis was undertaken to preserve the form of each participant's narrative. We argue that nurses' pandemic trajectories occurred within the 'psychological vulnerability-stigma nexus' which operates within health and social care providers in the UK and whilst constraining nurses' agency at times it could also provide an impetus to act agentically. We found that the nurses' COVID-19 trajectories were characterised by: getting by, getting out (job-hopping) getting needs met and getting organised. We call for more considered systemic support to be generated and consistently provided to nurses to ensure retention of nurses and the security of society to avoid exacerbating existing workforce shortages.

'Pretty cathartic actually': Reflections on the attempt to reduce re-traumatization of researchers and nurses taking part in a longitudinal interview study.

AIM: To critically evaluate the concepts of harm and re-traumatization in the research process and to explore the ethical implications of conducting research on distressing topics using our research on the experiences of nurses working during the COVID-19 pandemic as an exemplar. DESIGN: Longitudinal qualitative interview study. METHODS: Using qualitative narrative interviews, we explored the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on nurses' psychological well-being in the UK. RESULTS: To reduce the potential for harm to both research participants and researchers, the members of the research team were keen to establish ways to reduce the power differential between the researcher and participants. We found that our collaborative and team-based approach, with participant autonomy and researcher reflexivity embedded into the research framework, enabled the sensitive generation of data. CONCLUSION: Reduction of potential harm for both participants and researchers in the generation of at times highly distressing data with a traumatized population was achieved through a respectful, honest and empathetic approach within a team that met frequently for reflection. IMPACT: The research participants were not harmed by our research, instead they expressed gratitude at being given space and time to tell their stories in a supportive environment. Our work advances nursing knowledge through accentuating the value of giving autonomy to research participants to control their stories whilst working within a supportive research team with emphasis placed on reflexivity and debriefing. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Nurses working clinically during COVID-19 were involved in the development of this study. Nurse participants were given autonomy over how and when they participated in the research process.

Speaking up during the COVID-19 pandemic: Nurses' experiences of organizational disregard and silence.

AIM: To critically examine nurses' experiences of speaking up during COVID-19 and the consequences of doing so. DESIGN: Longitudinal qualitative study. METHODS: Participants were purposively sampled to represent differing geographical locations, specialities, settings and redeployment experiences. They were interviewed (remotely) between July 2020 and April 2022 using a semi-structured interview topic guide. RESULTS: Three key themes were identified inductively from our analysis including: (1) Under threat: The ability to speak up or not; (2) Risk tolerance and avoidance: Consequences of speaking up; and (3) Deafness and hostility: Responses to speaking up. Nurses reported that their attempts to speak up typically focused on PPE, patient safety and redeployment. Findings indicate that when NHS Trusts and community services initiated their pandemic response policies, nurses' opportunities to speak up were frequently thwarted. CONCLUSION: Accounts presented in this article include nurses' feeling a sense of futility or of suffering in silence in relation to speaking up. Nurses also fear the consequences of speaking up. Those who did speak up encountered a 'deaf' or hostile response, leaving nurses feeling disregarded by their organization. This points to missed opportunities to learn from those on the front line. IMPACT: Speaking up interventions need to focus on enhancing the skills to both speak up, and respond appropriately, particularly when power, hierarchy, fear and threat might be concerned. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Nurses working clinically during COVID-19 were involved in the development of this study. Participants were also involved in the development of our interview topic guide and comments obtained from the initial survey helped to shape the study design.

The impact of COVID-19 on nurses (ICON) survey: Nurses' accounts of what would have helped to improve their working lives.

AIMS: To use nurses' descriptions of what would have improved their working lives during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. DESIGN: Analysis of free-text responses from a cross-sectional survey of the UK nursing and midwifery workforce. METHODS: Between 2 and 14 April 2020, 3299 nurses and midwives completed an online survey, as part of the 'Impact of COVID-19 on Nurses' (ICON) study. 2205 (67%) gave answers to a question asking for the top three things that the government or their employer could do to improve their working lives. Each participants' response was coded using thematic and content analysis. Multiple response analysis quantified the frequency of different issues and themes and examined variation by employer. RESULTS: Most (77%) were employed by the National Health Service (77%) and worked at staff or senior staff nurse levels (55%). 5938 codable responses were generated. Personal protective equipment/staff safety (60.0%), support to workforce (28.6%) and better communication (21.9%) were the most cited themes. Within 'personal protective equipment', responses focussed most on available supply. Only 2.8% stated that nothing further could be done. Patterns were similar in both NHS and non-NHS settings. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis provided valuable insight into key changes required to improve the work lives of nurses during a pandemic. Urgent improvements in provision and quality of personal protective equipment were needed for the safety of both workforce and patients. IMPACT: Failure to meet nurses needs to be safe at work appears to have damaged morale in this vital workforce. We identified key strategies that, if implemented by the Government and employers, could have improved the working lives of the nursing and midwifery workforce during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic and could prevent the pandemic from having a longer-term negative impact on the retention of this vital workforce. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No Patient or Public Contribution, due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, urgency of the work and the target population being health and social care staff.

"What Is the Matter With Me?" or a "Badge of Honor": Nurses' Constructions of Resilience During Covid-19.

It has long been known that nursing work is challenging and has the potential for negative impacts. During the COVID-19 pandemic most nurses' working landscapes altered dramatically and many faced unprecedented challenges. Resilience is a contested term that has been used with increasing prevalence in healthcare with health professionals encouraging a "tool-box" of stress management techniques and resilience-building skills. Drawing on narrative interview data (n = 27) from the Impact of Covid on Nurses (ICON) qualitative study we examine how nurses conceptualized resilience during COVID-19 and the impacts this had on their mental wellbeing. We argue here that it is paramount that nurses are not blamed for experiencing workplace stress when perceived not to be resilient "enough," particularly when expressing what may be deemed to be normal and appropriate reactions given the extreme circumstances and context of the COVID-19 pandemic.