Will we ever be the same again? The mental health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health care staff and institutions.

As a group, health care workers (HCWs) were vulnerable to poor mental health (MH) prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. The added burdens of COVID-19 have put extra stressors on the health system and its most precious resource-its workers. This pandemic has exacerbated already poor MH in HCWs, leading to a workforce that is burnt out and struggling to cope with growing demands. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, risk factors for poor HCW mental health have been identified. The changes in practices brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic and identified as risk factors for poor MH that were experienced in other areas of health care and medical establishments were also witnessed by HCWs working in cytology. Indeed, all health care staff have been affected by this pandemic, and we now know that MH problems in HCWs are negatively impacting the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath as they adversely influence quality of care. The question is then rightfully asked: Will we, as health care staff working in medical establishments, ever be the same again, or has COVID-19 forever changed our working lives? Fortunately, protective factors and multi-level interventions associated with adaptive MH outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic have also been identified. In this article, we conclude that whilst working life is unlikely to return to pre-pandemic practices, the health care system now has an opportunity to promote individual and systemic growth by adhering to the principles that protect HCWs' MH and mitigate burnout during these challenging times.

The mental health of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a narrative review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Mental health (MH) problems among healthcare workers (HCWs) have the potential to impact negatively on the capacity of health systems to respond effectively to COVID-19. A thorough understanding of the factors that degrade or promote the MH of HCWs is needed to design and implement suitable intervention strategies to support the wellbeing of this population. RECENT FINDINGS: MH problems among HCWs were elevated prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Accumulating evidence indicates that this public health crisis has had a disproportionately negative impact on the MH of specialised populations, including HCWs. Literature from prior health pandemics suggests that the adverse effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the MH of HCWs are likely to persist in the aftermath of the public health crisis. Primary and secondary risk factors for adverse MH outcomes have been identified and should be considered when implementing interventions to protect the MH of HCWs. SUMMARY: The MH of HCWs has been negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, which is having a detrimental influence on the public health response to COVID-19. Protecting the MH of HCWs both during and beyond this public health crisis should remain a top priority, with particular emphasis on multifaceted interventions that aim to balance the psychological needs of individual HCWs with organisational-level strategies that could be targeted to promote their wellbeing.

Brief Digital Interventions to Support the Psychological Well-being of NHS Staff During the COVID-19 Pandemic: 3-Arm Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Health and social care staff are at high risk of experiencing adverse mental health (MH) outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Hence, there is a need to prioritize and identify ways to effectively support their psychological well-being (PWB). Compared to traditional psychological interventions, digital psychological interventions are cost-effective treatment options that allow for large-scale dissemination and transcend social distancing, overcome rurality, and minimize clinician time. OBJECTIVE: This study reports MH outcomes of a Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-compliant parallel-arm pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) examining the potential usefulness of an existing and a novel digital psychological intervention aimed at supporting psychological health among National Health Service (NHS) staff working through the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: NHS Highland (NHSH) frontline staff volunteers (N=169) were randomly assigned to the newly developed NHSH Staff Wellbeing Project (NHSWBP), an established digital intervention (My Possible Self [MPS]), or a waitlist (WL) group for 4 weeks. Attempts were made to blind participants to which digital intervention they were allocated. The interventions were fully automated, without any human input or guidance. We measured 5 self-reported psychological outcomes over 3 time points: before (baseline), in the middle of (after 2 weeks), and after treatment (4 weeks). The primary outcomes were anxiety (7-item General Anxiety Disorder), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire), and mental well-being (Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale). The secondary outcomes included mental toughness (Mental Toughness Index) and gratitude (Gratitude Questionnaire-6). RESULTS: Retention rates mid- and postintervention were 77% (n=130) and 63.3% (n=107), respectively. Postintervention, small differences were noted between the WL and the 2 treatment groups on anxiety (vs MPS: Cohen d=0.07, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.33; vs NHSWBP: Cohen d=0.06, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.31), depression (vs MPS: Cohen d=0.37, 95% CI 0.07-0.66; vs NHSWBP: Cohen d=0.18, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.46), and mental well-being (vs MPS: Cohen d=-0.04, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.08; vs NHSWBP: Cohen d=-0.15, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.10). A similar pattern of between-group differences was found for the secondary outcomes. The NHSWBP group generally had larger within-group effects than the other groups and displayed a greater rate of change compared to the other groups on all outcomes, except for gratitude, where the rate of change was greatest for the MPS group. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses provided encouraging results for the use of brief digital psychological interventions in improving PWB among health and social care workers. Future multisite RCTs, with power to reliably detect differences, are needed to determine the efficacy of contextualized interventions relative to existing digital treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN) ISRCTN18107122; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN18107122.

The mental health of NHS staff during the COVID-19 pandemic: two-wave Scottish cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Health and social care workers (HSCWs) are at risk of experiencing adverse mental health outcomes (e.g. higher levels of anxiety and depression) because of the COVID-19 pandemic. This can have a detrimental effect on quality of care, the national response to the pandemic and its aftermath. AIMS: A longitudinal design provided follow-up evidence on the mental health (changes in prevalence of disease over time) of NHS staff working at a remote health board in Scotland during the COVID-19 pandemic, and investigated the determinants of mental health outcomes over time. METHOD: A two-wave longitudinal study was conducted from July to September 2020. Participants self-reported levels of depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), anxiety (Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7) and mental well-being (Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale) at baseline and 1.5 months later. RESULTS: The analytic sample of 169 participants, working in community (43%) and hospital (44%) settings, reported substantial levels of depression and anxiety, and low mental well-being at baseline (depression, 30.8%; anxiety, 20.1%; well-being, 31.9%). Although mental health remained mostly constant over time, the proportion of participants meeting the threshold for anxiety increased to 27.2% at follow-up. Multivariable modelling indicated that working with, and disruption because of, COVID-19 were associated with adverse mental health changes over time. CONCLUSIONS: HSCWs working in a remote area with low COVID-19 prevalence reported substantial levels of anxiety and depression, similar to those working in areas with high COVID-19 prevalence. Efforts to support HSCW mental health must remain a priority, and should minimise the adverse effects of working with, and disruption caused by, the COVID-19 pandemic.

A rapid review of the impact of COVID-19 on the mental health of healthcare workers: implications for supporting psychological well-being.

BACKGROUND: Health and social care workers (HSCWs) have carried a heavy burden during the COVID-19 crisis and, in the challenge to control the virus, have directly faced its consequences. Supporting their psychological wellbeing continues, therefore, to be a priority. This rapid review was carried out to establish whether there are any identifiable risk factors for adverse mental health outcomes amongst HSCWs during the COVID-19 crisis. METHODS: We undertook a rapid review of the literature following guidelines by the WHO and the Cochrane Collaboration's recommendations. We searched across 14 databases, executing the search at two different time points. We included published, observational and experimental studies that reported the psychological effects on HSCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: The 24 studies included in this review reported data predominantly from China (18 out of 24 included studies) and most sampled urban hospital staff. Our study indicates that COVID-19 has a considerable impact on the psychological wellbeing of front-line hospital staff. Results suggest that nurses may be at higher risk of adverse mental health outcomes during this pandemic, but no studies compare this group with the primary care workforce. Furthermore, no studies investigated the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on social care staff. Other risk factors identified were underlying organic illness, gender (female), concern about family, fear of infection, lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) and close contact with COVID-19. Systemic support, adequate knowledge and resilience were identified as factors protecting against adverse mental health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence to date suggests that female nurses with close contact with COVID-19 patients may have the most to gain from efforts aimed at supporting psychological well-being. However, inconsistencies in findings and a lack of data collected outside of hospital settings, suggest that we should not exclude any groups when addressing psychological well-being in health and social care workers. Whilst psychological interventions aimed at enhancing resilience in the individual may be of benefit, it is evident that to build a resilient workforce, occupational and environmental factors must be addressed. Further research including social care workers and analysis of wider societal structural factors is recommended.

A situation analysis of psychiatrists in South Africa's rural primary healthcare settings.

BACKGROUND: South Africa (SA) has been facing serious challenges in providing human resources for the delivery of essential mental health (MH) services. The majority of its prescribing MH specialists, psychiatrists, practise in private, urban and peri-urban areas. The findings of a situation analysis audit of psychiatrist human resources in the public rural primary healthcare (PRPHC) sector are presented in this paper. METHOD: This audit was based on both primary and secondary data. The primary data were obtained from key informant interviews with the clinical heads of 160 PRPHC facilities, while the secondary data comprised a literature review. RESULTS: The results indicate that psychiatrists are severely underrepresented, employed at a rate of 0.03 per 100 000 population in SA's PRPHC settings. CONCLUSIONS: Because of a lack of MH nurses and medical officers dedicated to MH in PRPHC facilities, recommendations are made that the current task shifting strategy be revisited to include more cadres of MH professionals with specialised psychopharmacological training, as non-medical prescribers at PRPHC level. It is advised that visiting psychiatrists and family physicians be involved in the construction of training and supervision programmes for non-medical prescribers at the primary healthcare level.

Mental health nurses in South Africa's public rural primary care settings: a human resource crisis.

INTRODUCTION: South Africa is a middle-income country with serious socioeconomic risk factors for mental illness. Of its population of 52 million, 53% live below the poverty line, 24% are unemployed and 11% live with HIV/AIDS, all of which are factors associated with an increased burden of neuropsychiatric disease. The negative social implications due to the mortality caused by AIDS are immense: thousands of children are being orphaned, increasing the risk of intergenerational mental illness. Ensuring sufficient mental health human resources has been a challenge, with South Africa displaying lower workforce numbers than many low- and middle-income countries. It is in South Africa's public rural primary healthcare (PRPHC) areas where access to mental healthcare services, especially medical prescribers, is most dire. In 1994, primary healthcare (PHC) was mainstreamed into South Africa's public healthcare system as an inclusive, people-orientated healthcare system. Nurses provide for the majority of the human resources at PHC level and are therefore seen as the backbone of this sector. Efforts to decentralize mental healthcare and integrate it into the PHC system rely on the availability of mental health nurses (MHNs), to whom the task of diagnosing mental illness and prescribing psychotropic medications can be shifted. The goal of this situation analysis was to fill knowledge gaps with regard to MHN human resources in South Africa's PRPHC settings, where an estimated 40% of South Africa's population reside. METHODS: Both primary and secondary data were analysed. Primary data was collected by inviting 160 (98%) of South African rural hospitals' clinical heads to participate in an interview schedule regarding mental health human resources at their institutions. Primary data were collated and then analysed using descriptive quantitative analysis to produce lists of MHNs per institution and per province. Secondary data was obtained from an extensive literature review of MHNs in South Africa, but also of mental healthcare services in other low- and middle-income countries. The literature review included reports by the National Department of Health and the South African Nursing Council, academic publications and dissertations as well as census data from Statistics South Africa, including findings from the 2011 general household survey. International secondary data was obtained from the WHO's most recent reports on global mental health. RESULTS: The findings suggest a distressing shortage of MHNs in South Africa's rural public areas. Only 62 (38.7%) of the 160 facilities employ MHNs, a total of 116 MHNs. These MHNs serve an estimated population of more than 17 million people, suggesting that MHNs are employed at a rate of 0.68 per 100 000 population in South Africa's PRPHC areas. CONCLUSIONS: Secondary data analysis indicates that MHNs are practicing in South Africa at a national rate of 9.7 per 100 000 population. This unequal distribution calls for a redistribution of MHNs to PRPHC areas. Further recommendations are made to address the mental healthcare workforce crisis by upscaling human resources in PRPHC areas. Revisiting policy surrounding training programs and the current evidence-based approach of task shifting is advised. Innovative approaches such as extending mental healthcare professions' roles and scopes of practice at PHC level are necessary to ensure adequate mental health care for all South Africans.