The role of organizational supports in mitigating mental ill health in firefighters: A cohort study in Alberta, Canada.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about the effectiveness of ongoing mental health support in reducing the mental health impacts of a traumatic deployment. METHODS: A cohort of firefighters was established among those deployed to a devastating wildfire in Alberta, Canada in May 2016. Firefighters completed three questionnaires: at recruitment giving details of exposures, a first follow-up reporting mental health supports before, during, and after the fire and a second follow-up, at least 30 months after the fire, with screening questionnaires for anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Fire chiefs were interviewed about mental health provisions. The impact of supports on mental ill health was estimated, adjusting for clustering within fire service and potential confounders. RESULTS: Of 1234 firefighters in the cohort, 840 completed the questionnaire on mental health supports. In total, 78 of 82 fire chiefs were interviewed. Analysis of the impact of supports on mental ill health included 745 firefighters from 67 fire services. Only 45.8% of reports of peer support were concordant between firefighters and fire chiefs. After adjusting for confounding, the odds ratios (OR) for peer support reported by both fire chief and firefighter were depressive disorder: OR = 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.08-0.61; anxiety disorder: OR = 0.45, 95% CI, 0.24-0.82; PTSD: OR = 0.62, 95% CI, 0.37-1.02. Symptoms of anxiety and depression but not PTSD were reduced by resiliency training before the fire and by support offered within 48 h of return from deployment. CONCLUSION: The results suggest peer support in firefighters is protective but its availability is poorly recognized. PTSD was somewhat less responsive, perhaps reflecting the cumulative effects of previous exposures.

Physician education on decision-making capacity assessment: Current state and future directions.

OBJECTIVE: To examine FPs' training needs for conducting decision-making capacity assessments (DMCAs) and to determine how training materials, based on a DMCA model, can be adapted for use by FPs. DESIGN: A scoping review of the literature and qualitative research methodology (focus groups and structured interviews). SETTING: Edmonton, Alta. PARTICIPANTS: Nine FPs, who practised in various settings, who chose to attend a focus group on DMCAs. METHODS: A scoping review of the literature to examine the current status of physician education regarding assessment of decision-making capacity, and a focus group and interviews with FPs to ascertain the educational needs of FPs in this area. MAIN FINDINGS: Based on the scoping review of the literature, 4 main themes emerged: increasing saliency of DMCAs owing to an aging population, suboptimal DMCA training for physicians, inconsistent approaches to DMCA, and tension between autonomy and protection. The findings of the focus groups and interviews indicate that, while FPs working as independent practitioners or with interprofessional teams are motivated to engage in DMCAs and use the DMCA model for those assessments, several factors impede their conducting DMCAs. The most notable barriers were a lack of education, isolation from interprofessional teams, uneasiness around managing conflict with families, fear of liability, and concerns regarding remuneration. CONCLUSION: This pilot study has helped to inform ways to better train and support FPs in conducting DMCAs. Family physicians are well positioned, with proper training, to effectively conduct DMCAs. To engage FPs in the process, however, the barriers should be addressed.

An Evaluation of the Decision-Making Capacity Assessment Model.

BACKGROUND: The Decision-Making Capacity Assessment (DMCA) Model includes a best-practice process and tools to assess DMCA, and implementation strategies at the organizational and assessor levels to support provision of DMCAs across the care continuum. A Developmental Evaluation of the DMCA Model was conducted. METHODS: A mixed methods approach was used. Survey (N = 126) and focus group (N = 49) data were collected from practitioners utilizing the Model. RESULTS: Strengths of the Model include its best-practice and implementation approach, applicability to independent practitioners and inter-professional teams, focus on training/mentoring to enhance knowledge/skills, and provision of tools/processes. Post-training, participants agreed that they followed the Model's guiding principles (90%), used problem-solving (92%), understood discipline-specific roles (87%), were confident in their knowledge of DMCAs (75%) and pertinent legislation (72%), accessed consultative services (88%), and received management support (64%). Model implementation is impeded when role clarity, physician engagement, inter-professional buy-in, accountability, dedicated resources, information sharing systems, and remuneration are lacking. Dedicated resources, job descriptions inclusive of DMCAs, ongoing education/mentoring supports, access to consultative services, and appropriate remuneration would support implementation. CONCLUSIONS: The DMCA Model offers practitioners, inter-professional teams, and organizations a best-practice and implementation approach to DMCAs. Addressing barriers and further contextualizing the Model would be warranted.