Measuring the Impact of Future Outbreaks? A Secondary Analysis of Routinely Available Data in Spain.

Background: As of 7 January 2022, it is estimated that 5.5 million people worldwide have died from COVID-19. Although the full impact of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) on healthcare systems worldwide is still unknown, we must consider the socio-economic impact. For instance, it has resulted in an 11% decrease in the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in the European Union. We aim to provide valuable information for policymakers by analysing widely available epidemiological and socioeconomic indicators using Spanish data. Methods: Secondary analysis of routinely available data from various official data sources covering the period from 1 March 2020 to 31 March 2021. To measure the impact of COVID-19 in the population, a set of epidemiological and socioeconomic indicators were used. The interrelationships between these socioeconomic and epidemiological indicators were analysed using Pearson's correlation. Their behaviour was grouped according to their greater capacity to measure the impact of the pandemic and was compared to identify those that are more appropriate to monitor future health crises (primary outcome) using multivariate analysis of canonical correlation for estimating the correlation between indicators using different units of analysis. Results: Data from different time points were analysed. The excess of mortality was negatively correlated with the number of new companies created during the pandemic. The increase in COVID-19 cases was associated with the rise of unemployed workers. Neither GDP nor per capita debt was related to any epidemiological indicators considered in the annual analysis. The canonical models of socioeconomic and epidemiological indicators of each of the time periods analysed were statistically significant (0.80-0.91 p < 0.05). Conclusions: In conclusion, during the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain, excess mortality, incidence, lethality, and unemployment constituted the best group of indicators to measure the impact of the pandemic. These indicators, widely available, could provide valuable information to policymakers and higher management in future outbreaks.

Strategies for the Psychological Support of the Healthcare Workforce during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The ERNST Study.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to the implementation of interventions to provide emotional and psychological support to healthcare workers in many countries. This ecological study aims to describe the strategies implemented in different countries to support healthcare professionals during the outbreak. Data were collected through an online survey about the measures to address the impact of the pandemic on the mental health of healthcare workers. Healthcare professionals, researchers, and academics were invited to respond to the survey. Fifty-six professionals from 35 countries contributed data to this study. Ten countries (28.6%) reported that they did not launch any national interventions. Both developed and developing countries launched similar initiatives. There was no relationship between the existence of any type of initiative in a country with the incidence, lethality, and mortality rates of the country due to COVID-19, and per capita income in 2020. The 24 h hotline for psychological support was the most frequent intervention. Tools for self-rescue by using apps or websites were extensively used, too. Other common interventions were the development of action protocols, availability of regular and updated information, implantation of distance learning systems, early detection of infection programs for professionals, economic reinforcements, hiring of staff reinforcement, and modification of leave and vacation dates.

Contributing factors for acute stress in healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, and Ecuador.

This study analyzed the frequency and intensity of acute stress among health professionals caring for COVID-19 patients in four Latin American Spanish-speaking countries during the outbreak. A cross-sectional study involved a non-probability sample of healthcare professionals in four Latin American countries. Participants from each country were invited using a platform and mobile application designed for this study. Hospital and primary care workers from different services caring for COVID-19 patients were included. The EASE Scale (SARS-CoV-2 Emotional Overload Scale, in Spanish named Escala Auto-aplicada de Sobrecarga Emocional) was a previously validated measure of acute stress. EASE scores were described overall by age, sex, work area, and experience of being ill with COVID-19. Using the Mann-Whitney U test, the EASE scores were compared according to the most critical moments of the pandemic. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to investigate associations between these factors and the outcome 'acute stress'. Finally, the Kruskal-Wallis was used to compare EASE scores and the experience of being ill. A total of 1372 professionals responded to all the items in the EASE scale: 375 (27.3%) Argentines, 365 (26.6%) Colombians, 345 (25.1%) Chileans, 209 (15.2%) Ecuadorians, and 78 (5.7%) from other countries. 27% of providers suffered middle-higher acute stress due to the outbreak. Worse results were observed in moments of peak incidence of cases (14.3 ± 5.3 vs. 6.9 ± 1.7, p < 0.05). Higher scores were found in professionals in COVID-19 critical care (13 ± 1.2) than those in non-COVID-19 areas (10.7 ± 1.9) (p = 0.03). Distress was higher among professionals who were COVID-19 patients (11.7 ± 1) or had doubts about their potential infection (12 ± 1.2) compared to those not infected (9.5 ± 0.7) (p = 0.001). Around one-third of the professionals experienced acute stress, increasing in intensity as the incidence of COVID-19 increased and as they became infected or in doubt whether they were infected. EASE scale could be a valuable asset for monitoring acute stress levels among health professionals in Latin America.ClinicalTrials: NCT04486404.

Development and validation in Ecuador of the EPD Questionnaire, a diabetes-specific patient-reported experience and outcome measure: A mixed-methods study.

INTRODUCTION: The global prevalence of diabetes in 2019 in adults was estimated to be 9.3%. This study developed in Ecuador, for the first time, instruments to assess patient-reported outcomes and experiences. METHODS: The Experiences of the Person with Diabetes (EPD) Questionnaire is a diabetes-specific instrument. A mixed-methods study was conducted. First, a qualitative item development phase that included four focus groups and six semi-structured interviews with patients was conducted in different rural and urban areas of Ecuador to obtain information on culture, beliefs, demographics, diet and social perspectives. A second quantitative phase for psychometric validation was carried out in primary care settings of rural and urban areas of Ecuador. RESULTS: Forty-two and four hundred and eighty-nine participants were included in each phase, respectively. The item development phase resulted in a questionnaire of 44 items (23 for perceived outcomes and 21 for experiences). In the validation study, most participants were women (58%) and from urban areas (57%). Exploratory factor analysis revealed three dimensions for each instrument. Outcomes instrument dimensions were symptoms and burnout, worries and fears and social limitations. Experiences instrument dimensions were information, patient-centred care and care delivery. Cronbach's α values of the total score and dimensions were high, ranging between .81 and .93 in both instruments. Confirmatory factor analysis showed an acceptable fit of the data. CONCLUSION: The EPD Questionnaire is probably the first instrument developed to assess patient-reported experiences and perceived outcomes in a middle-income country that included patients to capture all dimensions relevant for the intended population. Its psychometric properties are robust and could provide valuable information for clinicians and policymakers in the region. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The development of these instruments has taken into consideration patients and the public since their conception. A qualitative approach gathered relevant information related to the cultural, social and economic burden of different populations in Ecuador. Before validation, a pilot test was carried out with users of the National Health Services to obtain their perspectives and insights of the developed instrument. Finally, during the data analysis, we have given special consideration to social variables such as rural and urban populations.

An Acute Stress Scale for Health Care Professionals Caring for Patients With COVID-19: Validation Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the response capacity of the health care workforce, and health care professionals have been experiencing acute stress reactions since the beginning of the pandemic. In Spain, the first wave was particularly severe among the population and health care professionals, many of whom were infected. These professionals required initial psychological supports that were gradual and in line with their conditions. OBJECTIVE: In the early days of the pandemic in Spain (March 2020), this study aimed to design and validate a scale to measure acute stress experienced by the health care workforce during the care of patients with COVID-19: the Self-applied Acute Stress Scale (EASE). METHODS: Item development, scale development, and scale evaluation were considered. Qualitative research was conducted to produce the initial pool of items, assure their legibility, and assess the validity of the content. Internal consistency was calculated using Cronbach α and McDonald ω. Confirmatory factor analysis and the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test were used to assess construct validity. Linear regression was applied to assess criterion validity. Back-translation methodology was used to translate the scale into Portuguese and English. RESULTS: A total of 228 health professionals from the Spanish public health system responded to the 10 items of the EASE scale. Internal consistency was .87 (McDonald ω). Goodness-of-fit indices confirmed a two-factor structure, explaining 55% of the variance. As expected, the highest level of stress was found among professionals working in health services where a higher number of deaths from COVID-19 occurred (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: The EASE scale was shown to have adequate metric properties regarding consistency and construct validity. The EASE scale could be used to determine the levels of acute stress among the health care workforce in order to give them proportional support according to their needs during emergency conditions, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Eventos adversos evitables en atención primaria. Estudio retrospectivo de cohortes para determinar su frecuencia y gravedad / Avoidable adverse events in primary care. Retrospective cohort study to determine their frequency and severity

OBJETIVO: Determinar la frecuencia de eventos adversos evitables (EAE) en atención primaria (AP). DISEÑO: Estudio retrospectivo de cohortes. Emplazamiento: consultas de medicina de familia y pediatría de Andalucía, Aragón, Castilla La Mancha, Cataluña, Madrid, Navarra y Comunidad Valenciana. PARTICIPANTES: Se determinó revisar un mínimo de 2.397 historias clínicas (nivel de confianza del 95% y una precisión del 2%). La muestra se estratificó por grupos de edad de forma proporcional a su frecuentación y con revisión paritaria de historias de hombres y mujeres. Mediciones principales: Número y gravedad de los EAE identificados entre febrero de 2018 y septiembre de 2019. RESULTADOS: Se revisaron un total de 2.557 historias clínicas (1.928, 75.4% de pacientes adultos y 629, 24.6% pediátricos). Se identificaron 182 EAE que afectaron a 168 pacientes (7,1%, IC 95% 6,1-8,1%); en adultos 7,6% (IC 95% 6,4-8,8%) y 5,7% (IC 95% 3,9-7,5%) en pacientes pediátricos. Las mujeres sufrieron más EAE que los hombres (p = 0,004). La incidencia de EAE en niños y niñas fue similar (p = 0,3). 6 (4.1%) de los EAE supusieron un daño permanente en pacientes adultos. CONCLUSIONES: Buscar fórmulas para incrementar la seguridad en AP, particularmente en pacientes mujeres, debe seguir siendo un objetivo prioritario incluso en pediatría. Uno de cada 24 EAE supone un daño grave y permanente en el adulto

OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of avoidable adverse events (AAEs) in Primary Care (PC). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. LOCATION: Family medicine and paediatric clinics in Andalusia, Aragon, Castilla-La Mancha, Catalonia, Madrid, Navarre, and Valencia. PARTICIPANTS: A review was performed on a designated sample of 2,397 medical records (95% confidence level and 2% accuracy). The sample was stratified by age group as regards the frequency of physician consultations and considering equal distribution of male and female patients. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Number and severity of identified AAEs from February 2018 to September 2019. RESULTS: A total of 2,557 medical records were reviewed (1,928, 75.4% of adult patients, and 629, 24.6% paediatrics). A total of 182 (7.1%, 95% CI 6.1-8.1%) AAEs that affected 168 patients were identified, which included 7.6% (95% CI 6.4-8.8%) in adults and 5.7% (95% CI 3.9-7.5%) in paediatric patients. The number of AAEs in women was higher than in men (P = 0.006). The incidence of AAEs in boys and girls was similar (P = 0.3). Permanent damage was caused by AAEs in 6 (4.1%) adult patients. CONCLUSIONS: Seeking formulas to increase patient safety in PC should remain a priority objective, particularly in female patients and in paediatrics. One in 24 AAEs causes serious and permanent damage in adults

Acute stress of the healthcare workforce during the COVID-19 pandemic evolution: a cross-sectional study in Spain.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the volume of health professionals who suffered distress due to their care of patients with COVID-19 and to analyse the direction in which the response capacity of the professionals to face future waves of COVID-19 is evolving. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. SETTING: Primary care and hospitals in Spain. PARTICIPANTS: A non-randomised sample of 685 professionals (physicians, nurses and other health staff). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency and intensity of stress responses measured by the Acute Stress of Health Professionals Caring COVID-19 Scale (EASE). Variation of stress responses according to the number of deaths per day per territory and the evolutionary stage of the COVID-19 outbreak measured by the Kruskal-Wallis and the Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: The average score on the EASE Scale was 11.1 (SD 6.7) out of 30. Among the participants, 44.2% presented a good emotional adjustment, 27.4% a tolerable level of distress, 23.9% medium-high emotional load and 4.5% extreme acute stress. The stress responses were more intense in the most affected territories (12.1 vs 9.3, p=0.003) and during the disillusionment phase (12.7 vs 8.5 impact, 10.2 heroic and 9.8 honeymoon, p=0.000). CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic has affected the mental health of a significant proportion of health professionals which may reduce their resilience in the face of future waves of COVID-19. The institutional approaches to support the psychological needs of health professionals are essential to ensure optimal care considering these results.

Availability of personal protective equipment and diagnostic and treatment facilities for healthcare workers involved in COVID-19 care: A cross-sectional study in Brazil, Colombia, and Ecuador.

Many affected counties have had experienced a shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. We aimed to investigate the needs of healthcare professionals and the technical difficulties faced by them during the initial outbreak. A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted among the healthcare workforce in the most populous cities from three Latin American countries in April 2020. In total, 1,082 participants were included. Of these, 534 (49.4%), 263 (24.3%), and 114 (10.5%) were physicians, nurses, and other professionals, respectively. At least 70% of participants reported a lack of PPE. The most common shortages were shortages in gown coverall suits (643, 59.4%), N95 masks (600, 55.5%), and face shields (569, 52.6%). Professionals who performed procedures that generated aerosols reported shortages more frequently (p<0.05). Professionals working in the emergency department and primary care units reported more shortages than those working in intensive care units and hospital-based wards (p<0.001). Up to 556 (51.4%) participants reported the lack of sufficient knowledge about using PPE. Professionals working in public institutions felt less prepared, received less training, and had no protocols compared with their peers in working private institutions (p<0.001). Although the study sample corresponded to different hospital centers in different cities from the participating countries, sampling was non-random. Healthcare professionals in Latin America may face more difficulties than those from other countries, with 7 out of 10 professionals reporting that they did not have the necessary resources to care for patients with COVID-19. Technical and logistical difficulties should be addressed in the event of a future outbreak, as they have a negative impact on healthcare workers. Clinical trial registration: NCT04486404.

[Avoidable adverse events in primary care. Retrospective cohort study to determine their frequency and severity]. / Eventos adversos evitables en atención primaria. Estudio retrospectivo de cohortes para determinar su frecuencia y gravedad.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of avoidable adverse events (AAEs) in Primary Care (PC). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. LOCATION: Family medicine and paediatric clinics in Andalusia, Aragon, Castilla-La Mancha, Catalonia, Madrid, Navarre, and Valencia. PARTICIPANTS: A review was performed on a designated sample of 2,397 medical records (95% confidence level and 2% accuracy). The sample was stratified by age group as regards the frequency of physician consultations and considering equal distribution of male and female patients. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Number and severity of identified AAEs from February 2018 to September 2019. RESULTS: A total of 2,557 medical records were reviewed (1,928, 75.4% of adult patients, and 629, 24.6% paediatrics). A total of 182 (7.1%, 95% CI 6.1-8.1%) AAEs that affected 168 patients were identified, which included 7.6% (95% CI 6.4-8.8%) in adults and 5.7% (95% CI 3.9-7.5%) in paediatric patients. The number of AAEs in women was higher than in men (P = 0.006). The incidence of AAEs in boys and girls was similar (P = 0.3). Permanent damage was caused by AAEs in 6 (4.1%) adult patients. CONCLUSIONS: Seeking formulas to increase patient safety in PC should remain a priority objective, particularly in female patients and in paediatrics. One in 24 AAEs causes serious and permanent damage in adults.