Misaligned Supports: Differences in Reported Health Care Worker Well-being Supports Provided and Needed During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: To describe the well-being supports provided to health care workers (HCWs) during the COVID-19 pandemic in health centers and hospitals. DESIGN: Cross-sectional qualitative interviews before and after implementation of a peer-based support intervention. SETTING: Purposively sampled hospitals and health centers across the US. PARTICIPANTS: 28 site leaders and 56 HCWs sampled from 16 hospitals and 12 health centers. METHOD: Site leaders and HCWs were asked to describe supports available to HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Thematic and content coding and analysis of interview responses were conducted using Dedoose. RESULTS: Both site leaders and HCWs identified a range of support resources available. Communication resources were the most frequently cited in both groups. Health care workers reported bi-directional communication, while one-way communication was emphasized by site leaders. Hospitals highlighted counseling support, particularly Employee Assistance Programs (EAP), while health centers prioritized community support. Wellness activities were more prevalent in hospital settings, while health centers offered specific workplace-provided training for HCWs. Health care workers encountered barriers when accessing support, including limited time, fear of stigma, and disruptions to their existing support networks attributable to the pandemic. CONCLUSION: While there are resources for HCWs, the available supports may not align with their needs and barriers to access may limit the effectiveness of these supports. Continued engagement between leaders and HCWs could help better align resources with needs.

Testing an Intervention to Improve Health Care Worker Well-Being During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Stress First Aid is an evidence-informed peer-to-peer support intervention to mitigate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the well-being of health care workers (HCWs). Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of a tailored peer-to-peer support intervention compared with usual care to support HCWs' well-being at hospitals and federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized clinical trial comprised 3 cohorts of HCWs who were enrolled from March 2021 through July 2022 at 28 hospitals and FQHCs in the US. Participating sites were matched as pairs by type, size, and COVID-19 burden and then randomized to the intervention arm or usual care arm (any programs already in place to support HCW well-being). The HCWs were surveyed before and after peer-to-peer support intervention implementation. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis was used to evaluate the intervention's effect on outcomes, including general psychological distress and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Intervention: The peer-to-peer support intervention was delivered to HCWs by site champions who received training and subsequently trained the HCWs at their site. Recipients of the intervention were taught to respond to their own and their peers' stress reactions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were general psychological distress and PTSD. General psychological distress was measured with the Kessler 6 instrument, and PTSD was measured with the PTSD Checklist. Results: A total of 28 hospitals and FQHCs with 2077 HCWs participated. Both preintervention and postintervention surveys were completed by 2077 HCWs, for an overall response rate of 28% (41% at FQHCs and 26% at hospitals). A total of 862 individuals (696 females [80.7%]) were from sites that were randomly assigned to the intervention arm; the baseline mean (SD) psychological distress score was 5.86 (5.70) and the baseline mean (SD) PTSD score was 16.11 (16.07). A total of 1215 individuals (947 females [78.2%]) were from sites assigned to the usual care arm; the baseline mean (SD) psychological distress score was 5.98 (5.62) and the baseline mean (SD) PTSD score was 16.40 (16.43). Adherence to the intervention was 70% for FQHCs and 32% for hospitals. The ITT analyses revealed no overall treatment effect for psychological distress score (0.238 [95% CI, -0.310 to 0.785] points) or PTSD symptom score (0.189 [95% CI, -1.068 to 1.446] points). Post hoc analyses examined the heterogeneity of treatment effect by age group with consistent age effects observed across primary outcomes (psychological distress and PTSD). Among HCWs in FQHCs, there were significant and clinically meaningful treatment effects for HCWs 30 years or younger: a more than 4-point reduction for psychological distress (-4.552 [95% CI, -8.067 to -1.037]) and a nearly 7-point reduction for PTSD symptom scores (-6.771 [95% CI, -13.224 to -0.318]). Conclusions and Relevance: This trial found that this peer-to-peer support intervention did not improve well-being outcomes for HCWs overall but had a protective effect against general psychological distress and PTSD in HCWs aged 30 years or younger in FQHCs, which had higher intervention adherence. Incorporating this peer-to-peer support intervention into medical training, with ongoing support over time, may yield beneficial results in both standard care and during public health crises. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04723576.

Improving Pain Care for Service Members: Administrator, Provider, and Patient Perspectives on Treatment, Policies, and Opportunities for Change.

Acute and chronic pain are common among service members, with musculoskeletal pain and injuries being the leading cause of nondeployability among active-duty service members. Given the significant implications for individual health and force readiness, providing high-quality pain care to service members is a priority of the Military Health System (MHS). Prior RAND research used administrative data to assess the quality and safety of pain care and opioid prescribing in the MHS, generated a set of quality measures that the MHS could adopt going forward, and identified strengths and opportunities for improvement in care provided to service members with pain conditions. In this study, authors document findings from interviews with MHS administrators, providers, and patients, providing valuable detail and context for those findings, along with on-the-ground perspectives on MHS pain care policies and guidance in practice. Staff and patients recommended prioritizing increases in treatment access and availability to improve pain care, and patients emphasized effective treatment and patient-centered care as the most important facilitators of high-quality pain care.

Adult Psychiatric Bed Capacity, Need, and Shortage Estimates in California-2021.

Psychiatric beds are essential infrastructure for meeting the needs of individuals with mental health conditions. However, not all psychiatric beds are alike: They represent infrastructure within different types of facilities, ranging from acute psychiatric hospitals to community residential facilities. These facilities, in turn, serve clients with different needs: some who have high-acuity, short-term needs and others who have chronic, longer-term needs and may return multiple times for care. California, much like many parts of the United States, is confronting a shortage of psychiatric beds. In this article, the authors estimated California's psychiatric bed capacity, need, and shortages for adults at each of three levels of care: acute, subacute, and community residential care. They used multiple methods for assessing bed capacity and need in order to overcome limitations to any single method of estimating the potential psychiatric bed shortfall. The authors identified statewide shortfalls in beds at all levels of inpatient and residential care. They also documented regional differences in the shortfall and identified special populations that contributed to bottlenecks in the continuum of inpatient and residential care in the state.