Building capacity for equitable healthcare workforce policy, learning from migrant healthcare workers: A qualitative study with Romanian physicians working in Germany during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Attention to the healthcare workforce has increased, yet comprehensive information on migrant healthcare workers is missing. This study focuses on migrant healthcare workers' experiences and mobility patterns in the middle of a global health crisis, aiming to explore the capacity for circular migration and support effective and equitable healthcare workforce policy. METHODS: Romanian physicians working in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic served as an empirical case study. We applied a qualitative explorative approach; interviews (n = 21) were collected from mid of September to early November 2022 and content analysis was performed. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Migrant physicians showed strong resilience during the COVID-19 crisis and rarely complained. Commitment to high professional standards and career development were major pull factors towards Germany, while perceptions of limited career choices, nepotism and corruption in Romania caused strong push mechanisms. We identified two major mobility patterns that may support circular migration policies: well-integrated physicians with a wish to give something back to their home country, and mobile cosmopolitan physicians who flexibly balance career opportunities and personal/family interests. Health policy must establish systematic monitoring of the migrant healthcare workforce including actor-centred approaches, support integration in destination countries as well as health system development in sending countries, and invest in evidence-based circular migration policy.

Patients' perception of coercion with respect to antipsychotic treatment of psychotic disorders and its predictors.

PURPOSE: The present study investigates perceived coercion in psychiatric inpatients under prescribed antipsychotic medication without a court order. The objective of this study was to investigate whether and to what extent involuntary and voluntary inpatients feel coerced to take their medication and which factors affect perceived coercion. METHODS: Voluntarily and involuntarily admitted patients (55 and 36, respectively) were interviewed about the extent of perceived coercion. In addition, socio-demographic and clinical data were collected. The Admission Experience Scale (aAES) was used to assess perceived coercion concerning medication. To measure insight into illness, attitude towards medication, and symptom severity, we used a questionnaire on insight into illness (FKE-10), the Drug Attitude Inventory (DAI-10), and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS-24), respectively. RESULTS: Voluntarily treated patients experienced significantly less coercion when taking prescribed medication in inpatient settings than involuntarily treated patients. The experience of coercion was not related to socio-demographic or clinical variables nor to the BPRS-24 score, but to insight into illness and attitude towards medication. Patients who had experienced at least one coercive measure during the index hospital stay showed a higher level of perceived coercion. CONCLUSION: Perceived coercion related to medication is dependent on insight into illness and experience of previous coercive interventions rather than on the severity of psychopathological symptoms. These findings are very similar to a previous study in a forensic psychiatric sample. Having experience of at least one coercive measure seems to be a decisive aspect of the extent of the patients' perceived coercion.

Migrant healthcare workers during COVID-19: bringing an intersectional health system-related approach into pandemic protection. A German case study.

Introduction: Migrant healthcare workers played an important role during the COVID-19 pandemic, but data are lacking especially for high-resourced European healthcare systems. This study aims to research migrant healthcare workers through an intersectional health system-related approach, using Germany as a case study. Methods: An intersectional research framework was created and a rapid scoping study performed. Secondary analysis of selected items taken from two COVID-19 surveys was undertaken to compare perceptions of national and foreign-born healthcare workers, using descriptive statistics. Results: Available research is focused on worst-case pandemic scenarios of Brazil and the United Kingdom, highlighting racialised discrimination and higher risks of migrant healthcare workers. The German data did not reveal significant differences between national-born and foreign-born healthcare workers for items related to health status including SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination, and perception of infection risk, protective workplace measures, and government measures, but items related to social participation and work conditions with higher infection risk indicate a higher burden of migrant healthcare workers. Conclusions: COVID-19 pandemic policy must include migrant healthcare workers, but simply adding the migration status is not enough. We introduce an intersectional health systems-related approach to understand how pandemic policies create social inequalities and how the protection of migrant healthcare workers may be improved.

"Our Patients Are Different": Predictors of Seclusion and Restraint in 31 Psychiatric Hospitals.

Background: Research in recent years has demonstrated that the use of coercive measures such as seclusion and restraint differs very much between hospitals within a country. In 2015, a central register for all coercive measures in the German federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg has been established for 32 hospitals treating involuntary patients. The objective of the present study was to identify factors that determine the differences between these hospitals. Methods: Data on coercive measures and diagnoses from the central register in 2015-2017 were linked with structural data of the 32 hospitals and their supply areas. Results: On average, coercive measures were applied in 6.7% of cases (SD = 2.8%; Min-Max = 0.35-12.0%). The proportion of affected cases was significantly correlated with the proportion of involuntary patients (r = 0.56), the proportion of cases with affective or neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders (r = -0.42), number of hospital beds (r = 0.44), a sheltered home associated with the hospital (r = 0.43) and number of addiction counseling centers per 100,000 inhabitants in the service area (r = -0.39). The final regression model only included the proportion of involuntary cases as a significant predictor (standardized beta = 0.55, adjusted R 2 = 0.27). Conclusions: The predominating part of the considerable variance observed between hospitals could not be explained by structural variables. The proportion of involuntary patients had a significant impact, but a considerable amount of unexplained variance due to different practices within psychiatric hospitals remains.