Psychological support for healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed methods study involving support providers.

Background: Healthcare staff represent a high-risk group for mental health difficulties as a result of their role during the COVID-19 pandemic. A number of wellbeing initiatives have been implemented to support this population, but remain largely untested in terms of their impact on both the recipients and providers of supports.Objective: To examine the experience of staff support providers in delivering psychological initiatives to healthcare staff, as well as obtain feedback on their perceptions of the effectiveness of different forms of support.Method: A mixed methods design employing a quantitative survey and qualitative focus group methodologies. An opportunity sample of 84 psychological therapists providing psychological supports to Northern Ireland healthcare staff participated in an online survey. Fourteen providers took part in two focus groups.Results: The majority of providers rated a number of supports as useful (e.g. staff wellbeing helplines, Hospital In-reach) and found the role motivating and satisfying. Thematic analysis yielded five themes related to provision of support: (1) Learning as we go, applying and altering the response; (2) The 'call to arms', identity and trauma in the collective response; (3) Finding the value; (4) The experience of the new role; and (5) Moving forward.Conclusions: While delivering supports was generally a positive experience for providers, adaptation to the demands of this role was dependent upon important factors (e.g. clinical experience) that need to be considered in the planning phase. Robust guidance should be developed that incorporates such findings to ensure effective evidence-based psychological supports are available for healthcare staff during and after the pandemic.

Providers of wellbeing supports to healthcare staff during COVID-19 viewed them as useful and the role satisfying.Key factors (e.g. clinical experience) should be considered to make the role manageable.Guidance should be developed to ensure appropriate supports are delivered.

Success and Survivorship Following Charcot Reconstruction: A Review of 151 Cases.

Charcot neuroarthropathy is a debilitating condition that frequently leads to skeletal deformity and pedal ulceration in the insensate foot. Results are often poor and no clear guidelines for surgical management exist. Additionally, amputation rates vary widely making it difficult to accurately inform patients of risks. Few studies have assessed outcomes to identify patients for whom reconstruction is likely to fail. The literature is limited, with small sample sizes and mortality infrequently addressed. We performed a retrospective observational study of patients with Charcot neuroarthropathy to assess overall amputation and mortality rates at 30 days, 1 year, and 3 years postreconstruction and evaluated associated risk factors. Rates of infection, re-ulceration, and return to walking were also assessed. We identified 151 patients over a 5-year period. Demographic and clinical characteristics were collected. Descriptive statistics, Cox proportional hazard model, and logistic regression were used. Overall, 22 (14.6%) patients died, and 23 (15.2%) patients advanced to limb amputation postoperatively. End-stage renal disease, peripheral vascular disease, reconstruction during active phase Charcot process, and reconstruction at the ankle or subtalar joint were all associated with poor outcomes. The risk of mortality was 2.5 times higher in patients with end-stage renal disease, and 3.4 times higher among patients with peripheral vascular disease. Patients with ankle or subtalar joint reconstruction were 70% less likely to return to walking compared to medial column reconstruction. Due to these findings, we suggest that patients with such comorbidities be advised of increased risk for complications including failure to return to walking, amputation, and death.

Validation of the Distress Thermometer in patients with advanced cancer receiving specialist palliative care in a hospice setting.

BACKGROUND: Ongoing assessment of psychological reaction to illness in palliative and end of life care settings is recommended, yet validated tools are not routinely used in clinical practice. The Distress Thermometer is a short screening tool developed for use in oncology, to detect individuals who would benefit from further psychological assessment. However the optimal cut-off to detect indicative psychological morbidity in patients with advanced cancer receiving specialist palliative care is unclear. AIM: To provide the first validation of the Distress Thermometer in an advanced cancer population receiving specialist palliative care in a UK hospice setting. DESIGN: Receiver Operating Characteristics analysis was used to compare the sensitivity and specificity of cut-offs indicative of psychological morbidity on the Distress Thermometer in comparison to the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Data were derived from 202 patients with advanced cancer who were approached on admission to inpatient or day hospice care, with 139 patients providing complete data on both measures. RESULTS: The area under the curve was optimal using a Distress Thermometer cut-off score of ⩾6 for total distress and for anxiety, and a cut-off score of ⩾4 optimal when screening for depression. CONCLUSIONS: The Distress Thermometer is a valid, accurate screening tool to be used in advanced cancer but with caution in relation to the lack of specificity. With little variation between the area under the curve scores, arguably a Distress Thermometer cut-off score of ⩾5 is most appropriate in screening for all types of psychological morbidity if sensitivity is to be prioritised.