ABSTRACT
The aim of this integrative review was to examine the impact of past viral epidemics on staff mental health interventional responses, with a specific focus on healthcare provider response in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Following PRISMA methodology, databases were searched for relevant articles. A total of 55 articles with a range of methodologies (e.g., commentary papers, cohort studies, qualitative studies) were included to ensure broad coverage of this rapidly emerging research area. The literature showed that many healthcare providers implemented a variety of wellbeing initiatives to support their staff during a viral outbreak. Most of these interventions, however, were not formally evaluated. Interventions included leadership/team support; online psychoeducational resources and updated information on the pandemic; respite spaces; peer support outreach; staff resilience training; telephone hotline support; staff support groups; and individual counseling. Staff were generally supportive of the initiatives offered by hospital and health services, with certain interventions being more appreciated (e.g., staff respite areas). Rapid, locally, and culturally appropriate workplace-based responses may counter the negative mental health impact on staff; but a stepped response is required for a smaller number of staff at risk of mental illness, or those with pre-existing mental illness. Systematic Review Registration: Unique Identifier: CRD42020222761.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The modified NUTrition Risk In the Critically ill (mNUTRIC) score has been demonstrated to accurately quantify the risk of negative patient outcomes and discriminate which patients will benefit the most from nutrition intervention in an intensive care unit (ICU) setting. Calculation of an mNUTRIC score, however, may be time-intensive and unable to be performed within available resources. This may prevent high-risk patients from being identified and reviewed by a dietitian. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of using the mNUTRIC tool to screen for patients at increased nutrition risk and to determine the proportion of those high-risk patients who were reviewed by a dietitian. SUBJECTS/METHODS: A retrospective observational study of 260 critically ill patients was conducted between 01/01/2017 and 30/05/2017 in a 20-bed Australian tertiary ICU. Participants included all adults admitted to the ICU for more than 72 h. Feasible implementation was defined as calculating an mNUTRIC score in <5 min per patient where all data were available for >90% of patients. RESULTS: A median time of 4 min and 54 s (interquartile range: 4.3-5.6 min) was required to calculate each mNUTRIC score, with 96% of scores calculated in <10 min. Data were available to calculate mNUTRIC scores for 93% (241/260) of patients. The mNUTRIC tool identified 81 patients at high nutrition risk, 44% (36/81) of whom were not reviewed by a dietitian. There were 21 high-risk patients who were purposefully excluded from dietetic review for various clinical reasons, leaving 15 high-risk patients (19%) who were not reviewed by a dietitian. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the mNUTRIC tool was not feasible in our ICU, given the set dietetic resources (0.6 full-time equivalent). Shared responsibility of nutrition screening or automating the calculation may be possible solutions to increase feasibility of mNUTRIC screening.
