ABSTRACT
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine the psychosocial impact and identify risk factors for poor psychosocial outcomes in healthcare professionals during the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Cyprus. BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals are in the forefront of the COVID-19 pandemic facing an unprecedented global health crisis, which can have consequences on their psychosocial health. There is a need to identify risk factors for poor psychosocial outcomes to inform the design of tailored psychological interventions. DESIGN: Cross-sectional online study. METHODS: A total of 1071 healthcare professionals completed self-report questionnaires. Measures included sociodemographic information, COVID-19-related characteristics, quality of life (Brief World Health Organization Quality of Life; WHOQOL-Bref), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7; GAD-7), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-8; PHQ-8), occupational burnout (Copenhagen Burnout Inventory; CBI), and coping (Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced; Brief COPE). This article follows the STROBE reporting guidelines. RESULTS: The prevalence of moderate to severe anxiety and clinically significant depression was 27.6% and 26.8%, respectively. Significant risk factors for poor psychological outcomes included being female, being a nurse or doctor (vs non-medical professional), working in frontline units (inpatient, intensive care), perceptions of inadequate workplace preparation to deal with the pandemic, and using avoidance coping. Depression and occupational burnout were significant risk factors for poor quality of life. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest several individual, psychosocial, and organisational risk factors for the adverse psychological outcomes observed in healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study highlights the urgent need for screening for anxiety and depression and psychological interventions to combat an imminent mental health crisis in healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pandemic response protocols and public health initiatives aiming to improve and prevent mental health problems in healthcare professionals during the current and future health crises, need to account for the various factors at play.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of heterogeneous case mix for a benchmarking analysis and interhospital comparison of the prevalence rates of nosocomial infection. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Eleven hospitals located in Cyprus and in the region of Crete in Greece. METHODS: The survey included all inpatients in the medical, surgical, pediatric, and gynecology-obstetrics wards, as well as those in intensive care units. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria were used to define nosocomial infection. The information collected for all patients included demographic characteristics, primary admission diagnosis, Karnofsky functional status index, Charlson comorbidity index, McCabe-Jackson severity of illness classification, use of antibiotics, and prior exposures to medical and surgical risk factors. Outcome data were also recorded for all patients. Case mix-adjusted rates were calculated by using a multivariate logistic regression model for nosocomial infection risk and an indirect standardization method.Results. The overall prevalence rate of nosocomial infection was 7.0% (95% confidence interval, 5.9%-8.3%) among 1,832 screened patients. Significant variation in nosocomial infection rates was observed across hospitals (range, 2.2%-9.6%). Logistic regression analysis indicated that the mean predicted risk of nosocomial infection across hospitals ranged from 3.7% to 10.3%, suggesting considerable variation in patient risk. Case mix-adjusted rates ranged from 2.6% to 12.4%, and the relative ranking of hospitals was affected by case-mix adjustment in 8 cases (72.8%). Nosocomial infection was significantly and independently associated with mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 3.6 [95% confidence interval, 2.1-6.1]). CONCLUSION: The first attempt to rank the risk of nosocomial infection in these regions demonstrated the importance of accounting for heterogeneous case mix before attempting interhospital comparisons.
