'Who will do it if I don't?' Nurse anaesthetists' experiences of working in the intensive care unit during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the workload on the intensive care unit (ICU) increased nationally in Sweden as well as globally. Certified registered nurse anaesthetists (CRNAs) in Sweden were transferred at short notice to work with seriously ill patients with COVID-19 in the ICU, which is not part of the CRNAs' specialist area. However, limited research has shed light on healthcare professionals' experiences of the pandemic. OBJECTIVES: This study illuminates CRNAs' experiences of working in the ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This study used a qualitative method with an inductive approach to interview nurse anaesthetists who worked in the ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic. FINDINGS: The participants experienced ambivalent feelings towards their work in the ICU. They also lacked information, which created feelings of uncertainty and resulted in expectations that did not correspond to the reality. They described that owing to an inadequate introduction, they could only provide "sufficient" care, which in many cases caused ethical stress. Not being able to get to know their new colleagues well enough to create effective cooperation created frustration. Even though the participants experienced the work in the ICU as demanding and challenging, overall, they enjoyed their time in the ICU and were treated well by their colleagues. CONCLUSIONS: Although CRNAs cannot replace intensive care nurses, they are a useful resource in the ICU in the care of patients with COVID-19. Healthcare workers who are allocated from their ordinary units to the ICU need adequate information and support from their work managers to be able to provide the best possible care and to stay healthy themselves.

Socioeconomic status as determinant for participation in mammography screening: assessing the difference between using women's own versus their partner's.

OBJECTIVES: Earlier research has shown that participation in mammography screening tends to vary across socioeconomic levels. We assessed the difference between using the woman's own socioeconomic status (SES) and using that of her household or partner as determinant of participation in mammography screening. METHODS: Participation data from two mammography screening programs in Denmark were linked to a national SES classification system providing data for each citizen, their partner, and household. We calculated the odds ratio of non-participation across SES levels using the woman's own, the household's, and her partner's SES status, respectively. RESULTS: When using the woman's own SES, the odds ratio of non-participation showed a clear U-shape across SES levels, in both programs. When using the partner's SES the difference in non-participation across SES levels was significantly smaller (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: To what extent SES was a determinant for screening participation strongly depended on whether using the woman's own SES or that of her partner. In a public health perspective it is important to take this into account when addressing the problem of non-attendance in screening.