Surveillance and return to work of healthcare workers following SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant infection, Sheffield, England, 17 January to 7 February 2022.

The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant has challenged demands to minimise workplace transmission in healthcare settings while maintaining adequate staffing. Policymakers have shortened COVID-19 isolation periods, although little real-world data have evaluated the utility. Our findings from surveillance of 240 healthcare workers from Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, England, show that 55% of affected staff could return before day 10 of isolation with over 25% eligible on day 6, pending two successive negative antigen tests. This outcome is favourable for continuity of healthcare services.

Roll-out of SARS-CoV-2 testing for healthcare workers at a large NHS Foundation Trust in the United Kingdom, March 2020.

Healthcare workers (HCW) are potentially at increased risk of infection with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and may transmit severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to vulnerable patients. We present results from staff testing at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom. Between 16 and 29 March 2020, 1,533 symptomatic HCW were tested, of whom 282 (18%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2. Testing HCW is a crucial strategy to optimise staffing levels during this outbreak.

Self-determining medical leadership needs of occupational health physicians.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to explore which factors motivate doctors to engage in leadership roles and to frame an inquiry of self-assessment within Self-Determination Theory (SDT) to identify the extent to which a group of occupational health physicians (OHPs) was able to self-determine their leadership needs, using a National Health Service (NHS) England competency approach promoted by the NHS England Leadership Academy as a self-assessment leadership diagnostic. Medical leadership is seen as crucial to the transformation of health-care services, yet leadership programmes are often designed with a top-down and centrally commissioned "one-size-fits-all" approach. In the UK, the Smith Review (2015) concluded that more decentralised and locally designed leadership development programmes were needed to meet the health-care challenges of the future. However, there is an absence of empirical research to inform the design of effective strategies that will engage and motivate doctors to take up leadership roles, while at the same time, health-care organisations continue to develop formal leadership roles as a way to secure medical leadership engagement. The problem is further compounded by a lack of validated leadership qualities assessment instruments which support researching this problem. Design/Methodology/approach The analysis draws on a sample of about 25 per cent of the total population size of the Faculty of Occupational Medicine ( n = 1,000). The questionnaire used was the Leadership Qualities Framework tool as a form of online self-assessment ( NHS Leadership Academy, 2012 ). The data were analysed using descriptive statistics and simple inferential methods. Findings OHPs are open about reporting their leadership strengths and leadership development needs and recognise leadership learning as an ongoing development need regardless of their level of personal competence. This study found that the single most important factor to affect a doctor's confidence in leadership is their experience in a management role. In multivariate regression, management experience accounted for the usefulness of leadership training, suggesting that doctors learn best through applied "leadership learning" as opposed to theory-driven programmes. Drawing on SDT ( Deci and Ryan, 1985 ; 2000 ; Ryan and Deci, 2000 ), this article provides a theoretical framework that helps to understand those doctors who are likely to engage in leadership and management activities in the organisation. More choice and self-determination of medical leadership programmes are likely to result in more relevant leadership learning that builds on doctors' previous experience in this area. Research limitations/implications While this study benefitted from a large sample size, it was limited to the use of purely quantitative methods. Future studies would benefit from the application of a mixed methodology to combine quantitative data with one-to-one interviews or a focus group. Practical implications This study suggests that doctors are able to determine their own learning needs reliably and that they are more likely to increase their confidence in leadership and management if they are exposed to leadership and management experience. Originality/value This is the first large-scale study of this kind with a large sample within a single medical specialty. The study is considered as insider research, as the first author is an OHP with knowledge of how to engage OHPs in this work.

Perceptions of illness and their impact on sickness absence.

BACKGROUND: A patient's perception of their illness can influence their coping ability, compliance with treatment and functional recovery. Psychological interventions to address negative beliefs may facilitate an earlier return to work. AIMS: To compare perceptions of illness, fitness to return to work and time to return to work among employees with those of their occupational physicians (OPs). METHODS: A cross-sectional study of employees off sick for >2 weeks, with the return to work date ascertained at 3 months. Employees and their OPs completed similar questionnaires that included the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire. RESULTS: Of total, 84 employees (76% response rate) and nine OPs participated. Employees reported a greater impact on their life (P < 0.01), a longer duration of illness (P < 0.01), more symptoms (P < 0.01), more concern about their illness (P < 0.01), more emotional impact of their illness (P < 0.01) and that their illness was more serious (P < 0.01) than did the OPs. They attributed their illness to work more often than their OPs (P < 0.05) and predicted more accurately when they would be fit to return to work (P < 0.01). Employees who returned to work believed that their illness was shorter lasting (P < 0.01), more treatable (P < 0.01), more controllable (P < 0.05), less serious (P < 0.01), had less emotional impact (P < 0.01), perceived fewer symptoms (P < 0.05) and had less concern (P < 0.05) than those who failed to return to work. CONCLUSIONS: Employees had more negative perceptions about their illness than OPs. Positive perceptions were associated with an earlier return to work. Unhelpful negative beliefs about illness need to be addressed by OPs.