Stress Among Healthcare Workers (Doctors and Nurses) as an Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ambreen Goni ◽  
Md Jahid Hasan ◽  
Kornelia Kotseva
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Doctors And Nurses

scholarly journals Exploring the Barriers and Levers to Hand Hygiene of Nursing and Medical Staff in Emergency Departments: A Mixed Methods Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Lorraine Rees
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Hand Hygiene ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Emergency Departments ◽  
Medical Staff ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Doctors And Nurses

<p>Background: Emergency Departments (ED) frequently host patients with undiagnosed infectious conditions and patients who are vulnerable to infection. Minimising the risk of exposure to infectious diseases is a priority in healthcare and is managed using a variety of strategies. Hand hygiene (HH) underpins these strategies, but ED have lagged behind improvement in HH compared to other units in New Zealand public hospitals. Given the consequences of healthcare associated infections (HAI), further investigation is warranted to identify barriers and levers to HH in the challenging environment of ED.  The aim of this explanatory sequential mixed methods study was to identify barriers and levers to HH practice in two ED in New Zealand.  Design: The mixed methods study was conducted in two phases. In Phase One, a questionnaire was used to survey nurses and doctors in the two ED sites. In Phase Two, follow-on focus groups were used to explore in-depth, specific aspects of the survey results.  Methods: In Phase One, doctors and nurses in the ED sites were surveyed to identify perceived barriers and levers of HH. A previously validated questionnaire from the United Kingdom was used. Following piloting, the questionnaire was circulated via email to all doctors and registered nurses. Results were analysed descriptively. Areas identified as strong barriers and levers to HH practice were identified, and used to inform development of a focus group interview guide.  In Phase Two, focus group participants were identified from a self-selected convenience sample of survey respondents. Focus groups were audio-recorded and data transcribed verbatim into NVivo Pro 11 before undergoing thematic analysis.  Results: The survey was distributed to doctors (n= 81) and nurses (n= 214). The response rate was low (11% for nurses, 12% for doctors). Two focus groups (n=6 & n=2) and one face to face interview (n=1) was held with nurses participating in each session. No medical staff participated in this phase of data collection. All respondents had worked in healthcare more than three years. Healthcare workers identified that professional role was the strongest lever for HH (93.1%, n=95), closely followed by knowledge and skills (84.3%, n=86). Healthcare workers demonstrated an awareness of benefits of HH including improving patient confidence and avoidance on infection for the patient and themselves (65.9%, n= 89). 45.6% (n=62) of responses identified a lack of encouragement or role modelling in this area of practice.  The physical environment in the ED was a major barrier (53.7%, n=73) although shorter stays in ED were not perceived as a barrier to HH (73.5%, n= 25). High patient turnover and acuity were also perceived as barriers to HH. HH initiatives were perceived to have a marginal effect (55.3%, n=57). Social influences and communication were further barriers to HH, with healthcare workers identifying discomfort when challenging others about HH.  Conclusion: Current barriers to HH including the environmental challenges, and social and cultural barriers to HH need to be addressed. Hand hygiene education that targets known challenges in, and misunderstandings about practice, need to be developed. Organisations must clearly articulate expectations of HH through policy and procedure, including a commitment to address non-compliance. Doctors and nurses should be supported in developing strategies to effectively communicate about, and challenge HH practices. With organisational support and a harnessing of the professional responsibilities that doctors and nurses hold, there is opportunity to strengthen barriers and mitigate barriers to HH.</p>

scholarly journals Knowledge, attitude and practices of healthcare workers regarding biomedical waste segregation at Mayo Hospital Lahore.

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (12) ◽  
pp. 2755-2762
Author(s):  
Saleha Qasim ◽  
Ainul Momina ◽  
Fatima Tul Zahra ◽  
Tahira Bano Qasim ◽  
Fakeha Rehman
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Biomedical Waste ◽  
Care Workers ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Waste Segregation ◽  
Medical University ◽  
Doctors And Nurses

Objectives: This study has been designed to assess the knowledge, attitude and practices of healthcare workers at Mayo Hospital regarding biomedical waste segregation. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Teaching Hospital of King Edward Medical University Lahore, Pakistan. Period: February 2018 to January 2019. Material & Methods: Structured questionnaires in English and Urdu were employed to collect data from healthcare workers (nurses and doctors) on duty in different wards of Mayo Hospital. The demographics, level of knowledge, practices and attitude regarding biomedical waste segregation are reported using descriptive statistics. The comparison of doctors and nurses is done using chi-square. Results: Significantly fewer number of doctors correctly identified the container for bio hazardous waste (p=0.016), while majority (89.4%) of respondents were able to correctly identify the container for sharps and general waste. Significantly more (p=0.00) number of nurses had training in waste segregation as compared with doctors. Majority (95.0%) of nurses acknowledged that guidelines regarding waste segregation were available in their departments, whereas significantly lesser number (64.5%) of doctors acknowledged existence of guidelines at their workplace (p=0.00). 21.3% of respondents claimed to have acquired infection from waste with no statistical difference between the two groups (p=0.19). A minority of the participants agreed that the practices were satisfactory (14.6%) and the required equipment was available (27.7%), yet there was a significant difference between the responses of doctors and nurses with the nurses being more satisfied with the available facilities and equipment (p=0.00) than doctors. Conclusion: The knowledge of the healthcare workers regarding waste segregation is better than their practices, nonetheless there is a dire need to improve the quality of training of these health care workers in and emphases must be put on ensuring that correct practices are adopted.

scholarly journals Educational capital as a basis for formation of labor strategies

POPULATION ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 115-124
Author(s):  
Aziza Yarasheva
Keyword(s):  
Medical Education ◽  
Nursing Education ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Rapid Development ◽  
Medical Personnel ◽  
Continuous Medical Education ◽  
Healthcare Organizations ◽  
Educational Capital ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Doctors And Nurses

On the basis of general scientific dialectical approaches, the article examines the issues of formation and development of educational capital as an integral part of human capital. The purpose of the article is to identify the features of the impact of the quality and level of education on the possibility of building labor strategies using the example of employees in healthcare as, as a specific industry in terms of building career trajectories. The features characteristic for formation of the educational capital of medical workers are highlighted. Based on the study of opinions (sociological surveys) of doctors and nurses at metropolitan healthcare organizations, conclusions were drawn: about availability and necessity for them to receive additional education, about the factors affecting the level of professionalism in performing work duties, about the most relevant types of training programs within the framework of continuing medical education, about the career types characteristic of medical personnel. It is shown that healthcare workers who successfully implement their professional labor strategy, as a rule, not only make optimal use of their existing educational capital, but also constantly improve their qualifications on the basis of continuous medical education. There are identified: categories of workers who are most in need of additional training; current directions of educational programs for heads of medical institutions; features of educational and professional trajectories connected with higher nursing education; differences in the opinions of doctors and nurses regarding the necessity and importance of self-education in the process of forming (replenishing) their educational potential. Rapid development of innovative technologies in medicine, which entails the need for advanced training of specialists, requires search for new effective forms of training for healthcare workers.

Stigmatization of Healthcare Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 1379-1383
Author(s):  
M. F. Khalid ◽  
M. Alam ◽  
F. Rehman ◽  
R. Sarfaraz
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Age Group ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Collection Data ◽  
Doctors And Nurses

Aim: To study stigmatization of healthcare workers due to COVID-19 pandemic Methodology: Using a cross-sectional study, a total of 134 healthcare workers were approached at Mayo Hospital, Lahore. An interview based, pre-tested, semi-constructed questionnaire consisting of both open and close ended questions were used for data collection. Data was analyzed using SPSS version 26. Results: Out of 134 healthcare workers, 40.3% were male and 59.7% were female. Distribution among doctors and nurses was 60.4% and 39.6% respectively. 51.5% of healthcare workers felt stigmatized due to working in the COVID-19 pandemic. 69.4% of healthcare workers knew of other people who faced similar stigmatization due to their exposure to COVID-19. Almost each age group and specialty faced such stigmatization. Conclusion: This study helped in understanding the stigma healthcare workers had to face during COVID-19 Pandemic which lead to significant distress and suffering for the healthcare workers. Keywords: COVID-19, pandemic, stigmatization, healthcare workers

scholarly journals Exploring the Barriers and Levers to Hand Hygiene of Nursing and Medical Staff in Emergency Departments: A Mixed Methods Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Lorraine Rees
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Hand Hygiene ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Emergency Departments ◽  
Medical Staff ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Doctors And Nurses

<p>Background: Emergency Departments (ED) frequently host patients with undiagnosed infectious conditions and patients who are vulnerable to infection. Minimising the risk of exposure to infectious diseases is a priority in healthcare and is managed using a variety of strategies. Hand hygiene (HH) underpins these strategies, but ED have lagged behind improvement in HH compared to other units in New Zealand public hospitals. Given the consequences of healthcare associated infections (HAI), further investigation is warranted to identify barriers and levers to HH in the challenging environment of ED.  The aim of this explanatory sequential mixed methods study was to identify barriers and levers to HH practice in two ED in New Zealand.  Design: The mixed methods study was conducted in two phases. In Phase One, a questionnaire was used to survey nurses and doctors in the two ED sites. In Phase Two, follow-on focus groups were used to explore in-depth, specific aspects of the survey results.  Methods: In Phase One, doctors and nurses in the ED sites were surveyed to identify perceived barriers and levers of HH. A previously validated questionnaire from the United Kingdom was used. Following piloting, the questionnaire was circulated via email to all doctors and registered nurses. Results were analysed descriptively. Areas identified as strong barriers and levers to HH practice were identified, and used to inform development of a focus group interview guide.  In Phase Two, focus group participants were identified from a self-selected convenience sample of survey respondents. Focus groups were audio-recorded and data transcribed verbatim into NVivo Pro 11 before undergoing thematic analysis.  Results: The survey was distributed to doctors (n= 81) and nurses (n= 214). The response rate was low (11% for nurses, 12% for doctors). Two focus groups (n=6 & n=2) and one face to face interview (n=1) was held with nurses participating in each session. No medical staff participated in this phase of data collection. All respondents had worked in healthcare more than three years. Healthcare workers identified that professional role was the strongest lever for HH (93.1%, n=95), closely followed by knowledge and skills (84.3%, n=86). Healthcare workers demonstrated an awareness of benefits of HH including improving patient confidence and avoidance on infection for the patient and themselves (65.9%, n= 89). 45.6% (n=62) of responses identified a lack of encouragement or role modelling in this area of practice.  The physical environment in the ED was a major barrier (53.7%, n=73) although shorter stays in ED were not perceived as a barrier to HH (73.5%, n= 25). High patient turnover and acuity were also perceived as barriers to HH. HH initiatives were perceived to have a marginal effect (55.3%, n=57). Social influences and communication were further barriers to HH, with healthcare workers identifying discomfort when challenging others about HH.  Conclusion: Current barriers to HH including the environmental challenges, and social and cultural barriers to HH need to be addressed. Hand hygiene education that targets known challenges in, and misunderstandings about practice, need to be developed. Organisations must clearly articulate expectations of HH through policy and procedure, including a commitment to address non-compliance. Doctors and nurses should be supported in developing strategies to effectively communicate about, and challenge HH practices. With organisational support and a harnessing of the professional responsibilities that doctors and nurses hold, there is opportunity to strengthen barriers and mitigate barriers to HH.</p>

scholarly journals HEALTH PROMOTION BEHAVIOUR FOR NON-COMMUNICABLE DISEASES AMONG HEALTHCARE WORKERS IN KAKAMEGA COUNTY, KENYA

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (12) ◽  
Author(s):  
Micky Oloo Olutende ◽  
Maximilla N. Wanzala ◽  
Elizabeth Mse ◽  
Edwin Kadima Wamukoya
Keyword(s):  
Health Promotion ◽  
Organizational Support ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Positive Attitude ◽  
Good Health ◽  
Communicable Diseases ◽  
Non Communicable Diseases ◽  
Lifestyle Practices ◽  
Depth Interviews ◽  
Doctors And Nurses

Introduction: The rising burden of non-communicable diseases poses a great health system challenge in Kenya. Healthcare workers have a critical role to play in health promotion, in addressing patients’ lifestyle risk factors. However, their own lifestyle habits can influence their attitude and practices towards patient care. Opportunistic counselling of patients by health professionals signifies one of the most cost-effective medical interventions in combatting non-communicable diseases. Objective: To determine the attitudes and practice of health promotion for the prevention and management of non-communicable diseases among healthcare workers In Kakamega county. Methods: A cross-sectional mixed method study was carried out from June to July 2018 at Kakamega county referral hospital. For the quantitative method, one hundred and eighty-five doctors and nurses were recruited through stratified sampling. Data on healthcare workers; socio-demographic characteristics, lifestyle practice, attitude, and practice of health promotion was collected through self- administered questionnaires. Frequency and percentage distributions tables were used to initially describe the study population while, Chi- square test of significance was used to evaluate the association between healthcare workers attitudes and practice of health promotion and their socio-demographic features. Secondly, a total of 12 doctors and nurses were purposively selected based on age, gender and profession of participants for the qualitative method. Data on healthcare workers perspective on health promotion and organizational support factors were collected through in-depth interviews. The recorded interviews were transcribed and data analysis was done using content analysis of thematic areas. A verbatim approach was used to describe study findings. Results: 69.2% of the respondents were females, mean age was 36 years and the median years in profession was 12 years. The respondents exhibited good lifestyle practices with alcohol and tobacco prevalence at 30.8 %and 3.8% respectively. 72% of the respondents demonstrated a positive attitude towards health promotion while, 31% showed good health promotion practices. Less than half of the respondents inquired about a patient’s lifestyle practices during routine visit. The study found that healthcare workers with a positive attitude were four times more likely to have good health promotion practices (OR = 3.54, p<0.001). Lastly findings from the in-depth interviews revealed that staff had no written guidelines on health promotion and that the hospital management had abolished the health promotion unit. Conclusion: The results indicated that a positive health professional attitude is a precursor to good health promotive practices. Recommendation: Efforts to build capacity and support for health promotion in health services should be encouraged. Additionally, health Promotion programs for non- communicable disease should not only target the health of general population but also the health of health care workers. <p> </p><p><strong> Article visualizations:</strong></p><p><img src="/-counters-/edu_01/0720/a.php" alt="Hit counter" /></p>

scholarly journals Different perspectives of doctors and nurses about the continuation of usage of some of the protection measures after the end of the COVID-19 pandemic

2021 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-46
Author(s):  
Marina Ruxandra Oțelea ◽  
Dana Mateș ◽  
Agripina Rașcu
Keyword(s):  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Disease Transmission ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Protection Measures ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Future ◽  
Doctors And Nurses

Abstract The current pandemic pointed toward a revision of the protection measures against infectious diseases. For any given new pathogen against which human species showed no immunity, isolation and personal protection equipment proved to reduce disease transmission. In medical settings, when there is inevitable contact with infected patients, these preventive measures have undoubtedly change the process of care delivery. The study aims to investigate the opinion of the healthcare workers about the utilization of the personal protective equipment after the pandemic stops. For this purpose, we conducted an online survey about changes related to the COVID-19 pandemic. For the healthcare workers, the survey also included several questions related to personal protective equipment. A total of 512 responders, doctors, and nurses answered to the survey. We performed comparisons between these two categories of personnel using the χ test. Overall, the results show that doctors are keener to follow the recommendations for the personal protective equipment in the future; there was a statistically significant difference (p<0.001) for the usage of gloves and masks while examining febrile patients, and for the handwashing after the examination of each patient. The type of service (outpatient or inpatient procedures) and direct contact with a COVID-19 patient were other factors to modulate the responses regarding using personal protective equipment in the future. The fact that 14.06% of the responders did not consider it necessary to wash hands after examining each patient underlines the urgent need for safety education in all healthcare workers and nurses.

scholarly journals Is Covid-19 seroprevalence different in health care workers as per their risk of exposure? A study from a tertiary care hospital in National Capital Region of India

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sushila Kataria ◽  
Rashmi Phogat ◽  
Pooja Sharma ◽  
Vikas Deswal ◽  
Sazid Alam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Workers ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Health Care Facilities ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Care Workers ◽  
History Of ◽  
Doctors And Nurses

AbstractBackgroundSARS-CoV-2 infection has severely ravaged health systems, economic and social progress globally in 2020. Seroprevalence studies can provide relevant information on the target populations for vaccination. They are relevant not only in the community, but also for critical population subgroups such as nursing homes or health care facilities. They will assist in strategizing the vaccination policy especially since there is limited availability of the vaccine and vaccine hesitancyObjectiveTo evaluate the seroprevalence in Health Care Workers (HCW) at our hospital and to identify parameters which may affect it.MethodologyThe Baseline profiling and seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was assessed among 3258 healthcare workers (HCWs) of Medanta-The Medicity, Gurugram, Haryana, India, as a part of an ongoing cohort study.The fully automated LIAISON® SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG test using the chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) for the quantitative determination of anti-S1 and anti-S2 specific IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 was used to test serum samples collected before the receipt of the vaccine. Seroprevalence was evaluated as per gender, age, association with previous Covid-19 diagnosis, use of supplements, and role in the hospital and type of exposure.ResultsOf the 3258 participants tested for IgG serology (S1 and S2 proteins) 46.2% (CI 44.4 – 47.9%) were positive (i.e. had an antibody titre more than 15 Au/ml). Higher seroprevalence was seen in the ‘others’ ie non clinical health care workers (including management, research personnel, pharmacists, technicians, general duty staff, housekeeping, security, food and beverage, and facility maintenance teams) (50.2 Au/ml) than that in clinical HCW (ie doctors and nurses)where it was significantly lower (41.4 Au/ml, p= 0.0001). Also, people with history of Covid-19 were found to have significantly higher antibody levels (p = 0.0001). Amongst the healthcare workers, doctors and nurses had higher relative risk of acquiring Covid-19 infection (RR = 1.21; 95% C.I.: 1.12 - 1.31).ConclusionSeroprevalence in healthcare workers at our hospital is high at 46.2%. It is higher in non-clinical HCW than in clinical HCW. The risk of acquiring Covid-19 infection was higher in clinical HCW and thus, this subgroup may benefit most from vaccination. History of Covid-19 may provide double the protection, in particular in those who had it recently.

scholarly journals Stress, Sleep and Psychological Impact in Healthcare Workers During the Early Phase of COVID-19 in India: A Factor Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seshadri Sekhar Chatterjee ◽  
Madhushree Chakrabarty ◽  
Debanjan Banerjee ◽  
Sandeep Grover ◽  
Shiv Sekhar Chatterjee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Marital Status ◽  
Early Phase ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Female Gender ◽  
Urban Habitat ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Doctors And Nurses

Background: Risks to healthcare workers have escalated during the pandemic and they are likely to experience a greater level of stress. This cross-sectional study investigated mental distress among healthcare workers during the early phase of Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in India.Method: 140 healthcare workers of a tertiary care hospital in India were assessed for perceived stress and insomnia. A factor analysis with principal component method reduced these questions to four components which were categorized as insomnia, stress-related anxiety, stress-related irritability, and stress-related hopelessness. Further statistical analyses were done on these factor scores to identify the predictors and investigate the differences between the different categories of healthcare workers.Result: Doctors had the highest level of anxiety among the healthcare workers. Both doctors and nurses perceived a greater level of irritability than the other HCWs. Compared to doctors and nurses, other HCWs were more likely to experience insomnia. Lower age, higher education, female gender, and urban habitat were associated with greater perception of anxiety. Older age, being quarantined, and single marital status were the significant predictors of irritability. Female gender, single marital-status, and higher number of medical ailments contributed to perceived hopelessness. Quarantine significantly predicted insomnia.Conclusion: Different categories of healthcare workers are experiencing varied mental health problems owing to their heterogeneous socio-demographic backgrounds. Tailored and personalized care, as well as policies, might help in alleviating their problems. Further research is warranted to explore the psychological distress and remedies among these frontline workers during and after the ongoing pandemic crisis.

scholarly journals Healthcare workers during the COVID‐19 pandemic: Experiences of doctors and nurses in Bangladesh

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mehdi Hussain ◽  
Tahmina Begum ◽  
Syeda A. Batul ◽  
Nastaran N. Tui ◽  
Md. N. Islam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Doctors And Nurses
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document