Improving patient-centered care for HIV and mental illness: exploring hospital and community integration through education.

Current models of care delivery are failing patients with complexity, like those living with HIV, mental illness and other psychosocial challenges. These patients often require resource-intensive personalized care across hospital and community settings, but available supports can be fragmented and challenging to access and navigate. To improve this, the authors created a program to enhance integrated, trauma-informed care through an innovative educational role for a HIV community caseworker embedded in an academic HIV Psychiatry clinic, called the Mental Health Clinical Fellowship. Through qualitative interviews with 21 participants (patients, physicians, clinicians and Mental Health Clinical Fellows) from October 2020-March 2023, the authors explore how implementation of this program affects patient experiences and satisfaction with care. Patients described their care experiences as less stigmatizing, more accessible, holistic and coordinated. They often attributed this to the integration between fellow and psychiatrist, and specifically the accessible stance of community organizations embedded within a hospital, which helped build trust. Interchangeable and integrated support by caseworker and psychiatrist improved patient engagement in psychiatric management and patient satisfaction with their care. Cross-context and cross-disciplinary care provision that includes providers from community and hospital working directly together to deliver care can improve care for patients with significant complexity.

Relationship between three aspects of resilience-adaptive characteristics, withstanding stress, and bouncing back-in hospital workers exposed to prolonged occupational stress during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: The term resilience is used to refer to multiple related phenomena, including: (i) characteristics that promote adaptation to stressful circumstances, (ii) withstanding stress, and (iii) bouncing back quickly. There is little evidence to understand how these components of resilience are related to one another. Skills-based adaptive characteristics that can respond to training (as opposed to personality traits) have been proposed to include living authentically, finding work that aligns with purpose and values, maintaining perspective in the face of adversity, managing stress, interacting cooperatively, staying healthy, and building supportive networks. While these characteristics can be measured at a single time-point, observing responses to stress (withstanding and bouncing back) require multiple, longitudinal observations. This study's aim is to determine the relationship between these three aspects of resilience in hospital workers during the prolonged, severe stress of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal survey of a cohort of 538 hospital workers at seven time-points between the fall of 2020 and the spring of 2022. The survey included a baseline measurement of skills-based adaptive characteristics and repeated measures of adverse outcomes (burnout, psychological distress, and posttraumatic symptoms). Mixed effects linear regression assessed the relationship between baseline adaptive characteristics and the subsequent course of adverse outcomes. RESULTS: The results showed significant main effects of adaptive characteristics and of time on each adverse outcome (all p < .001). The size of the effect of adaptive characteristics on outcomes was clinically significant. There was no significant relationship between adaptive characteristics and the rate of change of adverse outcomes over time (i.e., no contribution of these characteristics to bouncing back). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that training aimed at improving adaptive skills may help individuals to withstand prolonged, extreme occupational stress. However, the speed of recovery from the effects of stress depends on other factors, which may be organizational or environmental.

The relationship between moral distress, burnout, and considering leaving a hospital job during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal survey.

BACKGROUND: Previous research suggests that moral distress contributes to burnout in nurses and other healthcare workers. We hypothesized that burnout both contributed to moral distress and was amplified by moral distress for hospital workers in the COVID-19 pandemic. This study also aimed to test if moral distress was related to considering leaving one's job. METHODS: A cohort of 213 hospital workers completed quarterly surveys at six time-points over fifteen months that included validated measures of three dimensions of professional burnout and moral distress. Moral distress was categorized as minimal, medium, or high. Analyses using linear and ordinal regression models tested the association between burnout and other variables at Time 1 (T1), moral distress at Time 3 (T3), and burnout and considering leaving one's job at Time 6 (T6). RESULTS: Moral distress was highest in nurses. Job type (nurse (co-efficient 1.99, p < .001); other healthcare professional (co-efficient 1.44, p < .001); non-professional staff with close patient contact (reference group)) and burnout-depersonalization (co-efficient 0.32, p < .001) measured at T1 accounted for an estimated 45% of the variance in moral distress at T3. Moral distress at T3 predicted burnout-depersonalization (Beta = 0.34, p < .001) and burnout-emotional exhaustion (Beta = 0.38, p < .008) at T6, and was significantly associated with considering leaving one's job or healthcare. CONCLUSION: Aspects of burnout that were associated with experiencing greater moral distress occurred both prior to and following moral distress, consistent with the hypotheses that burnout both amplifies moral distress and is increased by moral distress. This potential vicious circle, in addition to an association between moral distress and considering leaving one's job, suggests that interventions for moral distress may help mitigate a workforce that is both depleted and burdened with burnout.

"It's Complicated": Using Education to Bridge Essential Care Between Hospital and Community for Complex Patients with HIV.

OBJECTIVE: For the most complex patients, like those with HIV and mental illness, integrated care occurs across diverse community and hospital contexts. There is a need for cross-discipline and cross-context educational opportunities for diverse providers to learn integrated care skillsets in real practice settings. The authors developed a Continuing Professional Development (CPD) experience for frontline case workers to be embedded in a hospital-based HIV psychiatry clinic that aims to enhance collaborative skills across hospital and community settings, called the Mental Health Clinical Fellowship. METHODS: Through qualitative pre- and post-interviews with 16 participants from October 2020 to October 2021, the authors explored patient, physician, clinician, resident learner, and the Mental Health Clinical Fellow's learning experiences and the impact on patient care. RESULTS: Preliminary findings elucidate some common challenges providers experience in providing care to this complex population, including facing uncertainty of diagnosis and management, and not having enough time or resources to navigate this uncertainty. The opportunity to work and learn across disciplines through the fellowship reduced challenges, and also facilitated adaptive expertise development. CONCLUSIONS: Cross-context and cross-discipline education opportunities facilitate perspective-sharing and enhanced ability to develop adaptive expertise in caring for complex populations. There is also promise for improving care and decreasing fragmentation because of the educational experience.

Providers' perspectives on implementing resilience coaching for healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic severely exacerbated workplace stress for healthcare workers (HCWs) worldwide. The pandemic also magnified the need for mechanisms to support the psychological wellbeing of HCWs. This study is a qualitative inquiry into the implementation of a HCW support program called Resilience Coaching at a general hospital. Resilience Coaching was delivered by an interdisciplinary team, including: psychiatrists, mental health nurses allied health and a senior bioethicist. The study focuses specifically on the experiences of those who provided the intervention. METHODS: Resilience Coaching was implemented at, an academic hospital in Toronto, Canada in April 2020 and is ongoing. As part of a larger qualitative evaluation, 13 Resilience Coaches were interviewed about their experiences providing psychosocial support to colleagues. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for themes by the research team. Interviews were conducted between February and June 2021. RESULTS: Coaches were motivated by opportunities to support colleagues and contribute to the overall health system response to COVID-19. Challenges included finding time within busy work schedules, balancing role tensions and working while experiencing burnout. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-based mental health professionals are well-positioned to support colleagues' wellness during acute crises and can find this work meaningful, but note important challenges to the role. Paired-coaches and peer support among the coaching group may mitigate some of these challenges. Perspectives from those providing support to HCWs are an important consideration in developing support programs that leverage internal teams.

Choosing Wisely? Let's Start with Working Wisely.

There is an increasing emphasis on quality and, relatedly, cost-effectiveness as it relates to the delivery of health care. Choosing Wisely is an initiative adopted by numerous specialties with the goal of starting a dialogue about efficient use of health care resources. People need to be able to access care to have an opportunity to choose wisely. There is a considerable amount of evidence that access to care is poor for specialty mental health care, particularly access to psychiatrists. Consequently, we suggest that psychiatrists and the broader mental health system need to consider working wisely, and in our paper outline key issues (for example, implementation of wait times and objective measures of need in a centralized referral management system; incorporation of performance indicators with longitudinal monitoring for continuous quality improvement) that need to be addressed to develop a mental health system that would allow people to access care to choose wisely.

A longitudinal study of hospital workers' mental health from fall 2020 to the end of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2023.

Most longitudinal studies of healthcare workers' mental health during COVID-19 end in 2021. We examined trends in hospital workers eight times, ending in 2023. A cohort of healthcare workers at one organization was surveyed at 3-month intervals until Spring 2022 and re-surveyed in Spring 2023 using validated measures of common mental health problems. Of 538 workers in the original cohort, 289 (54%) completed the eighth survey. Repeated-measures ANOVA revealed significant changes in psychological distress (F = 7.4, P < .001), posttraumatic symptoms (F = 14.1, P < .001), and three dimensions of burnout: emotional exhaustion (F = 5.7, P < .001), depersonalization (F = 2.7, P = .01), and personal accomplishment (F = 2.8, P = .008). Over time, psychological distress and depersonalization increased, posttraumatic symptoms and personal accomplishment decreased, and emotional exhaustion fluctuated significantly without net change. Most measures did not improve significantly in the year prior to the declaration of the pandemic's end. The lack of improvement in psychological distress, emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment during the period in which COVID-19 case rates declined and public health measures were relaxed is a concerning indication of the chronicity of the impact of the pandemic on healthcare workers.

Antibiotics for delirium in older adults with pyuria or bacteriuria: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether antibiotics impact delirium outcomes in older adults with pyuria or bacteriuria in the absence of systemic signs of infection or genitourinary symptoms. METHODS: We registered our systematic review protocol with PROSPERO (CRD42023418091). We searched the Medline and Embase databases from inception until April 2023 for studies investigating the impact of antimicrobial treatment on the duration and severity of delirium in older adults (≥60 years) with pyuria (white blood cells detected on urinalysis or dipstick) or bacteriuria (bacteria growing on urine culture) and without systemic signs of infection (temperature > 37.9C [>100.2F] or 1.5C [2.4F] increase above baseline temperature, and/or hemodynamic instability) or genitourinary symptoms (acute dysuria or new/worsening urinary symptoms). Two reviewers independently screened search results, abstracted data, and appraised the risk of bias. Full-text randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational study designs were included without restriction on study language, duration, or year of publication. RESULTS: We screened 984 citations and included 4 studies comprising 652 older adults (mean age was 84.6 years and 63.5% were women). The four studies were published between 1996 and 2022, and included one RCT, two prospective observational cohort studies, and one retrospective chart review. None of the four studies demonstrated a significant effect of antibiotics on delirium outcomes, with two studies reported a worsening of outcomes among adults who received antibiotics. The three observational studies included had a moderate or serious overall risk of bias, while the one RCT had a high overall risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review found no evidence that treatment with antibiotics is associated with improved delirium outcomes in older adults with pyuria or bacteriuria and without systemic signs of infection or genitourinary symptoms. Overall, the evidence was limited, largely observational, and had substantial risk of bias.

Long-term impact of COVID-19 pandemic: Moral tensions, distress, and injuries of healthcare workers.

Given the longevity of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to address the perceptions and experiences associated with the progression of the pandemic. This narrative can inform future strategies aimed at mitigating moral distress, injury, and chronic stress that restores resilience and well-being of HCWs. In this context, a longitudinal survey design was undertaken to explore how health care workers are experiencing the COVID-19 pandemic over time. A qualitative design was employed to analyze the open ended survey responses using a thematic analysis approach. All physicians and staff at an academic health science centre in Toronto, Ontario, Canada were invited to participate in the survey. The majority of survey respondents were nurses and physicians, followed by researchers/scientists, administrative assistants, laboratory technicians, managers, social workers, occupational therapists, administrators, clerks and medical imaging technologists. The inductive analysis revealed three themes that contributed to moral tensions and injury: 1) experiencing stress and distress with staffing shortages, increased patient care needs, and visitor restrictions; 2) feeling devalued and invisible due to lack of support and inequities; and 3) polarizing anti- and pro-public health measures and incivility. Study findings highlight the spectrum, magnitude, and severity of the emotional, psychological, and physical stress leading to moral injury experienced by the healthcare workforce. Our findings also point to continued, renewed, and new efforts in enhancing both individual and collective moral resilience to mitigate current and prevent future moral tensions and injury.

Impact of an intergenerational program to improve loneliness and social isolation in older adults initiated at the time of emergency department discharge: study protocol for a three-arm randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Social isolation and loneliness (SIL) worsens mortality and other outcomes among older adults as much as smoking. We previously tested the impact of the HOW R U? intervention using peer support from similar-aged volunteers and demonstrated reduced SIL among older adults discharged from the emergency department (ED). Generativity, defined as "the interest in establishing and guiding the next generation," can provide an alternative theoretical basis for reducing SIL via intergenerational programs between members of younger and older generations. The current protocol will examine the impact of younger intergenerational volunteers providing the HOW RU? METHODS: In this randomized clinical trial, we will compare the following three arms: (1) the standard same-generation peer support HOW R U? intervention, (2) HOW R U? intervention delivered by intergenerational volunteers, and (3) a common wait-list control group. Outcome assessors will be blinded to the intervention. Trained volunteers will deliver 12 weekly telephone support calls. We will recruit participants ≥ 70 years of age with baseline loneliness (six-item De Jong loneliness score of 2 or greater) from two EDs. Research staff will assess SIL, depression, quality of life, functional status, generativity, and perceived benefit at baseline, at 12 weeks, and 24 weeks post-intervention. DISCUSSION: We hypothesize participants receiving the intergenerational intervention will show improved outcomes compared to the control group and peer support HOW R U? INTERVENTION: We also hypothesize that participants with higher perceptions of generativity will have greater reductions in SIL than their lower generativity counterparts. Aging is experienced diversely, and social interventions combatting associated SIL should reflect that diversity. As part of a program of research following the Obesity-Related Behavioral Intervention Trials (ORBIT) model, the findings of this RCT will be used to define which intervention characteristics are most effective in reducing SIL. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05998343 Protocol ID:21-0074E. Registered on 24 July 2023.

Impact of a peer-support programme to improve loneliness and social isolation due to COVID-19: does adding a secure, user friendly video-conference solution work better than telephone support alone? Protocol for a three-arm randomised clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has forced the implementation of physical distancing and self-isolation strategies worldwide. However, these measures have significant potential to increase social isolation and loneliness. Among older people, loneliness has increased from 40% to 70% during COVID-19. Previous research indicates loneliness is strongly associated with increased mortality. Thus, strategies to mitigate the unintended consequences of social isolation and loneliness are urgently needed. Following the Obesity-Related Behavioural Intervention Trials model for complex behavioural interventions, we describe a protocol for a three-arm randomised clinical trial to reduce social isolation and loneliness. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, outcome assessor blinded, three-arm randomised controlled trial comparing 12 weeks of: (1) the HOspitals WoRking in Unity ('HOW R U?') weekly volunteer-peer support telephone intervention; (2) 'HOW R U?' deliver using a video-conferencing solution and (3) a standard care group. The study will follow Consolidated Standard of Reporting Trials guidelines.We will recruit 24-26 volunteers who will receive a previously tested half day lay-training session that emphasises a strength-based approach and safety procedures. We will recruit 141 participants ≥70 years of age discharged from two participating emergency departments or referred from hospital family medicine, geriatric or geriatric psychiatry clinics. Eligible participants will have probable baseline loneliness (score ≥2 on the de Jong six-item loneliness scale). We will measure change in loneliness, social isolation (Lubben social network scale), mood (Geriatric Depression Score) and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) at 12-14 weeks postintervention initiation and again at 24-26 weeks. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval has been granted by the participating research ethics boards. Participants randomised to standard care will be offered their choice of telephone or video-conferencing interventions after 12 weeks. Results will be disseminated through journal publications, conference presentations, social media and through the International Federation of Emergency Medicine. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05228782.

Randomized trial of personalized psychological feedback from a longitudinal online survey and simultaneous evaluation of randomized stepped wedge availability of in-person peer support for hospital staff during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: We tested if automated Personalized Self-Awareness Feedback (PSAF) from an online survey or in-person Peer Resilience Champion support (PRC) reduced emotional exhaustion among hospital workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: Among a single cohort of participating staff from one hospital organization, each intervention was evaluated against a control condition with repeated measures of emotional exhaustion at quarterly intervals for 18 months. PSAF was tested in a randomized controlled trial compared to a no-feedback condition. PRC was tested in a group-randomized stepped-wedge design, comparing individual-level emotional exhaustion before and after availability of the intervention. Main and interactive effects on emotional exhaustion were tested in a linear mixed model. RESULTS: Among 538 staff, there was a small but significant beneficial effect of PSAF over time (p = .01); the difference at individual timepoints was only significant at timepoint three (month six). The effect of PRC over time was non-significant with a trend in the opposite direction to a treatment effect (p = .06). CONCLUSIONS: In a longitudinal assessment, automated feedback about psychological characteristics buffered emotional exhaustion significantly at six months, whereas in-person peer support did not. Providing automated feedback is not resource-intensive and merits further investigation as a method of support.

Resilience coaching for healthcare workers: Experiences of receiving collegial support during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To explore experiences of receiving collegial support from the department of psychiatry at an acute care hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: The Resilience Coaching program launched in April 2020, with the aim of offering a timely response to supporting psychosocial needs of healthcare workers (HCWs), leveraging collegial relationships and mental health training to offer support. Twenty-four HCWs were interviewed about their experiences receiving support from resilience coaches. RESULTS: Participants reported that Resilience Coaching offered hospital staff opportunities for connection, encouragement to attend to personal wellness, and avenues to learn practical skills to assist with coping. Coaching also assisted HCWs in accessing clinical mental health support when that was requested by staff. CONCLUSIONS: Resilience Coaching is a model for supporting colleagues in an acute care hospital during a pandemic. It is generally regarded positively by participants. Further study is warranted to determine how best to engage some occupational subcultures within the hospital, and whether the model is feasible for other healthcare contexts.

Trends in burnout and psychological distress in hospital staff over 12 months of the COVID-19 pandemic: a prospective longitudinal survey.

BACKGROUND: The mental health effects of healthcare work during the COVID-19 pandemic have been substantial, but it is not known how long they will persist. This study aimed to determine if hospital workers' burnout and psychological distress increased monotonically over 1 year, during which waves of case numbers and hospitalizations waxed and waned, or followed some other pattern. METHODS: A prospective longitudinal survey was conducted at four time-points over 1 year in a cohort of 538 hospital workers and learners, which included validated measures of burnout (emotional exhaustion scale of Maslach Burnout Inventory) and psychological distress (K6). Repeated measures ANOVA tested changes over time and differences between subjects by occupational role, age and ethnic group. The direction and magnitude of changes over time were investigated by plotting rates of high scores (using cut-offs) at each time-point compared to case rates of COVID-19 in the city in which the study took place. RESULTS: There were significant effects of occupational role (F = 11.2, p < .001) and age (F = 12.8, p < .001) on emotional exhaustion. The rate of high burnout was highest in nurses, followed by other healthcare professionals, other clinical staff, and lowest in non-clinical staff. Peak rates of high burnout occurred at the second or third measurement point for each occupational group, with lower rates at the fourth measurement point. Similarly to the results for emotional exhaustion, rates of high psychological distress peaked at the spring 2021 measurement point for most occupational groups and were higher in nurses than in other healthcare professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Neither emotional exhaustion nor psychological distress was rising monotonically. Burnout and psychological distress were consistently related to occupational role and were highest in nurses. Although emotional exhaustion improved as the case rate of COVID-19 decreased, rates of high emotional exhaustion in nurses and other healthcare professionals remained higher than was typically measured in hospital-based healthcare workers prior to the pandemic. Ongoing monitoring of healthcare workers' mental health is warranted. Organizational and individual interventions to support healthcare workers continue to be important.

The Relationship Between Childhood Adversity and Other Aspects of Clinical Complexity in Psychiatric Outpatients.

Childhood abuse, neglect, and loss are common in psychiatric patients, and the relationship between childhood adversity and adult mental illness is well known. However, beyond diagnoses that are specifically trauma-related, such as posttraumatic stress disorder, there has been little research on how childhood adversity contributes to complex presentations that require more intensive treatment. We examined the relationship between childhood adversity and other contributors to clinical complexity in adult outpatients seeking mental health assessment. In a cross-sectional study, patients completed standard measures of psychological distress and functional impairment. Psychiatrists completed an inventory of clinical complexity, which included childhood abuse, neglect, and loss. Of 4,903 patients seen over 15 months, 1,315 (27%) both consented to research and had the measure of complexity completed. Childhood abuse or neglect was identified in 474 (36.0%) and significant childhood loss in 236 (17.9%). Correcting for multiple comparisons and controlling for psychiatric diagnosis, age, and sex, patients with childhood abuse or neglect were significantly more likely to also have 11 of 31 other indices of clinical complexity, with odds ratios ranging from 1.7 to 5.0. Both childhood abuse or neglect and childhood loss were associated with greater overall complexity (i.e., more indices of complexity, χ2 = 136 and 38 respectively, each p < .001). Childhood abuse and neglect (but not childhood loss) were significantly associated with psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale [K10] score, F = 6.2, p = .01) and disability (World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale 2.0 [WHODAS 2.0] score, F = 5.0, p = .03). Childhood abuse and neglect were associated with many characteristics that contribute to clinical complexity, and thus to suboptimal outcomes to standard, guideline-based care. Screening may alert psychiatrists to the need for intensive, patient-centered, and trauma-informed treatments. Identifying childhood adversity as a common antecedent of complexity may facilitate developing transdiagnostic programs that specifically target sources of complexity.

An Academic Health Sciences Centre's Strategy to Enhance Nurse Resilience and Psychological Safety.

The rapid cadence of change and the fear of acquiring and spreading COVID-19 - coupled with moral distress exacerbated by fulfilling one's duty to care under extremely challenging conditions - continue to impact nurses' coping ability, resilience and psychological safety globally (McDougall et al. 2020). This paper provides an overview of how an academic health sciences centre (AHSC) has responded to the evolving waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, we share our context and the strategies we used to build and enhance nurse resilience and psychological safety at the organizational, clinical team and individual levels. This is followed by a description of our nurses' achievements amid the pandemic.