Looking after each other in a crisis-Lessons from Novichok and the parallels with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: In March 2018, three patients were admitted to the Emergency Department of a District General Hospital. Originally suspected of having suffered an opiate overdose, it became clear that they were the victims of anti-cholinesterase poisoning-the Soviet era poison Novichok. Twenty-five days later, two further patients were admitted with the same symptoms. One of these patients died 8 days later and the second remained in hospital for 3 weeks. A Clinical Psychologist was present on the unit throughout the major incident and all staff directly involved received psycho-educational support regarding self-care. AIMS: To examine the psychological impact of the longest running major incident in NHS history on the staff directly involved. DESIGN: A cross-sectional design was used, with structured questionnaires administered retrospectively. METHODS: A link to an electronic survey was emailed to every member of staff in the organization. The survey included the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Maslach Burnout Inventory, the Impact of Events Scale-Revised (to both the March and June events). RESULTS: 540/4000 hospital staff responded (13.5% response rate) with a 29/59 (49%) response rate in intensive care staff. Frontline staff had significantly lower scores on anxiety (P < .05 for the June incident), depressive symptoms (P < .05 March and June) and subscales of burnout than managers (depersonalization P < .05). On the remaining two burnout subscales and on anxiety scores for those involved in March, results trended towards significance (P < .1). CONCLUSIONS: Staff in management roles during major incidents may experience higher levels of psychological distress than staff in front line clinical roles and should be encouraged to seek psychological support. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This article informs teams of the psychological impact of major incidents on staff in intensive care settings.

Screening instruments for detecting illicit drug use/abuse that could be useful in general hospital wards: a systematic review.

AIM: To identify and describe screening instruments for detecting illicit drug use/abuse that are appropriate for use in general hospital wards and review evidence for reliability, validity, feasibility and acceptability. METHODS: Instruments were identified from a number of screening instrument databases/libraries and Google Scholar. They were independently assessed for eligibility by two reviewers. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PSYCINFO, and Cochrane Library were searched for articles published up to February 2010. Two reviewers independently assessed the identified articles for eligibility and extracted data from the eligible studies. RESULTS: 13 instruments, ASSIST, CAGE-AID, DAST, DHQ/PDHQ, DUDIT, DUS, NMASSIST, SIP-AD, SDS, SMAST-AID, SSI-SA, TICS and UNCOPE were included in the review. They had 2 to 28 items and took less than 10 min to administer and score. Evidence on validity, reliability, acceptability and feasibility of instruments in adult patients not known to have a substance abuse problem was scarce. Of the 21 studies included in the review, only one included participants from general hospital wards. Reported sensitivity, specificity and predictive values varied widely both between studies of the same instrument and also between different instruments. No study was identified comparing two or more of the included instruments. CONCLUSION: The review identified and described 13 instruments that could be useful in general hospital wards. There is however lack of evaluation of illicit drug use screening instruments in general hospital wards. Currently clinicians or researchers searching for a simple, reliable, general screening instrument for current drug use to guide practice or research in general hospital wards do not have enough comparative evidence to choose between the available measures.