The effect of smoking initiation in adolescence on the subsequent smoking trajectories of people who smoke, and the role of adverse childhood experiences: Results from the 1958 British cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between smoking initiation in adolescence and subsequent different smoking trajectories of people who smoke, and to examine the combined effect of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and smoking initiation in adolescence on smoking trajectories of people who smoke. DESIGN AND SAMPLE: Data are from 8757 individuals in Great Britain from the birth cohort National Child Development Study and who reported being smokers or former smokers by age 23. MEASUREMENTS: Smoking initiation in adolescence was measured at 16 y and smoking trajectories were derived from smoking variables from ages 23 to 55. We modelled the relationship between smoking initiation in adolescence with or without ACEs and smoking trajectories. RESULTS: Individuals who initiated smoking in adolescence were more likely to quit later than quitting in twenties (RRR quitting in thirties  = 3.43 [2.40; 4.89] p < .001; RRR quitting in forties  = 5.25 [3.38; 8.14] p < .001; RRR quitting in fifties  = 4.48 [2.95; 6.79] p < .001), to relapse (RRR Relapse  = 3.66 [2.82; 4.76] p < .001) and to be persistent smokers (RRR persistent  = 5.25 [3.81; 7.25] p < .001) compared to those who had initiated smoking in young adulthood. These effects were particularly pronounced in case of ACEs. CONCLUSION: Smoking prevention programs aimed at reducing smoking initiation should be promoted to adolescents to limit the burden of smoking, especially for people who have suffered adversity during childhood.

[Ecos among nursing students]. / Les Ecos chez les étudiants en soins infirmiers.

Objective, structured clinical examinations provide an adaptive, harmonized and egalitarian device for standardized assessment of health care students. This method is structured around several thematic stations, with a rhythmic and timed passage. All future professionals in the field, including nursing students, could benefit from this method.

The Evolution of Effort-Reward Imbalance in Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic in France-An Observational Study in More than 8000 Workers.

(1) Background: The effects of lockdown repetition on work-related stress, expressed through Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI), during the COVID-19 pandemic are poorly documented. We investigated the effect of repetitive lockdowns on the ERI in French workers, its difference across occupations, and the change in its influencing factors across time. (2) Methods: Participants were included in a prospective cross-sectional observational study from 30 March 2020 to 28 May 2021. The primary outcome was the ERI score (visual analog scale). The ERI score of the population was examined via Generalized Estimating Equations. For each period, the factors influencing ERI were studied by multivariate linear regression. (3) Results: In 8121 participants, the ERI score decreased in the first 2 lockdowns (53.2 ± 0.3, p < 0.001; 50.5 ± 0.7, p < 0.001) and after lockdown 2 (54.8 ± 0.8, p = 0.004) compared with the pre-pandemic period (59 ± 0.4). ERI was higher in medical than in paramedical professionals in the pre-pandemic and the first 2 lockdowns. Higher workloads were associated with better ERI scores. (4) Conclusions: In a large French sample, Effort-Reward Imbalance worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic until the end of the 2nd lockdown. Paramedical professionals experienced a higher burden of stress compared with medical professionals.

Mass Training In Situ During COVID-19 Pandemic: Enhancing Efficiency and Minimizing Sick Leaves.

INTRODUCTION: Avoiding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) work-related infection in frontline healthcare workers is a major challenge. A massive training program was launched in our university hospital for anesthesia/intensive care unit and operating room staff, aiming at upskilling 2249 healthcare workers for COVID-19 patients' management. We hypothesized that such a massive training was feasible in a 2-week time frame and efficient in avoiding sick leaves. METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study. Training focused on personal protective equipment donning/doffing and airway management in a COVID-19 simulated patient. The educational models used were in situ procedural and immersive simulation, peer-teaching, and rapid cycle deliberate practice. Self-learning organization principles were used for trainers' management. Ordinary disease quantity in full-time equivalent in March and April 2020 were compared with the same period in 2017, 2018, and 2019. RESULTS: A total of 1668 healthcare workers were trained (74.2% of the target population) in 99 training sessions over 11 days. The median number of learners per session was 16 (interquartile range = 9-25). In the first 5 days, the median number of people trained per weekday was 311 (interquartile range = 124-385). Sick leaves did not increase in March to April 2020 compared with the same period in the 3 preceding years. CONCLUSIONS: Massive training for COVID-19 patient management in frontline healthcare workers is feasible in a very short time and efficient in limiting the rate of sick leave. This experience could be used in the anticipation of new COVID-19 waves or for rapidly preparing hospital staff for an unexpected major health crisis.

The major worldwide stress of healthcare professionals during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic - the international COVISTRESS survey.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has initiated an upheaval in society and has been the cause of considerable stress during this period. Healthcare professionals have been on the front line during this health crisis, particularly paramedical staff. The aim of this study was to assess the high level of stress of healthcare workers during the first wave of the pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The COVISTRESS international study is a questionnaire disseminated online collecting demographic and stress-related data over the globe, during the pandemic. Stress levels were evaluated using non-calibrated visual analog scale, from 0 (no stress) to 100 (maximal stress). RESULTS: Among the 13,537 individuals from 44 countries who completed the survey from January to June 2020, we included 10,051 workers (including 1379 healthcare workers, 631 medical doctors and 748 paramedical staff). The stress levels during the first wave of the pandemic were 57.8 ± 33 in the whole cohort, 65.3 ± 29.1 in medical doctors, and 73.6 ± 27.7 in paramedical staff. Healthcare professionals and especially paramedical staff had the highest levels of stress (p < 0.001 vs non-healthcare workers). Across all occupational categories, women had systematically significantly higher levels of work-related stress than men (p < 0.001). There was a negative correlation between age and stress level (r = -0.098, p < 0.001). Healthcare professionals demonstrated an increased risk of very-high stress levels (>80) compared to other workers (OR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.87-2.41). Paramedical staff risk for very-high levels of stress was higher than doctors' (1.88, 1.50-2.34). The risk of high levels of stress also increased in women (1.83, 1.61-2.09; p < 0.001 vs. men) and in people aged <50 (1.45, 1.26-1.66; p < 0.001 vs. aged >50). CONCLUSIONS: The first wave of the pandemic was a major stressful event for healthcare workers, especially paramedical staff. Among individuals, women were the most at risk while age was a protective factor.

Does prior exposure to clinical critical events influence stress reactions to simulation session in nursing students: A case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Simulation is a pedagogical method known to be a generator of stress, that could be influenced by previous stressful experiences. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of previous experience with a clinical critical event on the stress experienced by nursing students during simulation session of critical events, and on the stress experienced during clinical critical events subsequent to the training. DESIGN: Observational case-control study. SETTINGS: Four critical event scenarios were created using full-scale simulation. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and fifteen undergraduate nursing students of semester four. The control group (n = 112) consisted of learners who had not previously experienced a critical event. The prior exposure group (n = 103) consisted of learners who had experienced a critical event prior to the course. METHODS: Stress levels were assessed using the self-report stress numerical rating scale-11. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the level of stress between the prior exposure group and the control group before, during or expected after the simulation session. A significant decrease in stress was observed in both groups from before the course to during the session (p < 0.05) and expected after the session (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the expected post-session stress level and the stress levels reported four months after the training (p = 0.966). At four months, there was no significant difference in stress levels between the groups (p = 0.212). CONCLUSIONS: The prior experience of a clinical critical event before a simulation course did not influence their reported stress level during the simulation session. Conversely, simulation-based training of critical situations appears to reduce the level of self-assessed stress during critical events in clinical practice after the training.

Efecto de un debriefing (reunión informativa) combinado en los participantes en cursos de simulación interprofesional para la gestión de recursos de crisis: un estudio aleatorio, controlado y multicéntrico / Effect of combined individual–collective debriefing of participants in interprofessional simulation courses on crisis resource management: a randomized controlled multicenter trial

Objetivo: La simulación interprofesional (SIP) es eficaz para aprender gestión de recursos de crisis. La modalidad de debriefing utilizada en la SIP puede influir en el rendimiento de los participantes y en su integridad psicológica. Se evalúa y compara el rendimiento de un debriefing estándar (DE) –colectivo– con un debriefing combinado (DC) –individual y colectivo– en cursos de SIP en escenarios que simulan pacientes con patología aguda y grave. Método: Ensayo controlado, aleatorizado y multicéntrico. Se aleatorizó el tipo de debriefing realizado (DE o DC) en las sesiones de SIP. El rendimiento del debriefing se evaluó con la escala TEAM (Team Emergency Assessment Measure). La calidad de la SIP fue valorada por los participantes con la escala DASH (Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare©). Resultados. Se aleatorizaron 40 cursos de SIP de los que se analizaron 30. Quince realizaron DE y 15 DC. Ambos grupos mejoraron entre la pre y la posprueba (p < 0,01), pero no hubo diferencias en el rendimiento global entre ambas modalidades de debriefing (p = 0,64). El DC obtuvo mejores resultados que el DE en la capacidad de liderazgo (p < 0,05), en la percepción de seguridad psicológica y en la experiencia de aprendizaje eficaz (p < 0,05). Conclusiones: Durante la SIP en situaciones de crisis, el debriefing mejora el rendimiento de los participantes, sin diferencias entre un DE y un DC. El DC podría ser más efectivo para mejorar la capacidad de liderazgo, la seguridad psicológica y la experiencia del aprendizaje

Objective: Interprofessional simulation (IPS) training is an effective way to learn crisis resource management. The type of debriefing used in IPS training may affect participants' performance and their level of psychological safety. We aimed to assess and compare performance after standard collective debriefing versus a combination of individual and collective debriefing ("combined" approach). Methods: Randomized, controlled multicenter trial. IPS sessions were randomized to have either standard or combined debriefing. Each team's performance in the IPS session was assessed with the Team Emergency Assessment Measure. The participants assessed the debriefing quality with the Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare. Results: Forty IPS sessions were randomized, and 30 were analyzed, 15 using standard collective debriefing and 15 the combined individual–collective method. Teams' performance improved with both types of debriefing, based on pre-post testing (P<.01), and there were no significant differences in overall performance scores between the 2 types of debriefing (P=.64). However, the combined approach was associated with higher scores for leadership skills (P<.05) and psychological safety, and the participants' learning experience was better (P<.05). Conclusions: During IPS courses on crisis resource management, debriefing improves participants' performance, but similar overall results can be obtained with both debriefing methods. Combined debriefing might be more effective for improving participants' leadership skills and psychological safety and also provide a better learning experience

Effect of combined individual-collective debriefing of participants in interprofessional simulation courses on crisis resource management: a randomized controlled multicenter trial. / Efecto de un debriefing (reunión informativa) combinado en los participantes en cursos de simulación interprofesional para la gestión de recursos de crisis: un estudio aleatorio, controlado y multicéntrico.

OBJECTIVES: Interprofessional simulation (IPS) training is an effective way to learn crisis resource management. The type of debriefing used in IPS training may affect participants' performance and their level of psychological safety. We aimed to assess and compare performance after standard collective debriefing versus a combination of individual and collective debriefing ("combined" approach). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Randomized, controlled multicenter trial. IPS sessions were randomized to have either standard or combined debriefing. Each team's performance in the IPS session was assessed with the Team Emergency Assessment Measure. The participants assessed the debriefing quality with the Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare. RESULTS: Forty IPS sessions were randomized, and 30 were analyzed, 15 using standard collective debriefing and 15 the combined individual-collective method. Teams' performance improved with both types of debriefing, based on pre-post testing (P<.01), and there were no significant differences in overall performance scores between the 2 types of debriefing (P=.64). However, the combined approach was associated with higher scores for leadership skills (P<.05) and psychological safety, and the participants' learning experience was better (P<.05). CONCLUSION: During IPS courses on crisis resource management, debriefing improves participants' performance, but similar overall results can be obtained with both debriefing methods. Combined debriefing might be more effective for improving participants' leadership skills and psychological safety and also provide a better learning experience.

OBJETIVO: La simulación interprofesional (SIP) es eficaz para aprender gestión de recursos de crisis. La modalidad de debriefing utilizada en la SIP puede influir en el rendimiento de los participantes y en su integridad psicológica. Se evalúa y compara el rendimiento de un debriefing estándar (DE) ­colectivo­ con un debriefing combinado (DC) ­individual y colectivo­ en cursos de SIP en escenarios que simulan pacientes con patología aguda y grave. METODO: Ensayo controlado, aleatorizado y multicéntrico. Se aleatorizó el tipo de debriefing realizado (DE o DC) en las sesiones de SIP. El rendimiento del debriefing se evaluó con la escala TEAM (Team Emergency Assessment Measure). La calidad de la SIP fue valorada por los participantes con la escala DASH (Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare©). RESULTADOS: Se aleatorizaron 40 cursos de SIP de los que se analizaron 30. Quince realizaron DE y 15 DC. Ambos grupos mejoraron entre la pre y la posprueba (p < 0,01), pero no hubo diferencias en el rendimiento global entre ambas modalidades de debriefing (p = 0,64). El DC obtuvo mejores resultados que el DE en la capacidad de liderazgo (p < 0,05), en la percepción de seguridad psicológica y en la experiencia de aprendizaje eficaz (p < 0,05). CONCLUSIONES: Durante la SIP en situaciones de crisis, el debriefing mejora el rendimiento de los participantes, sin diferencias entre un DE y un DC. El DC podría ser más efectivo para mejorar la capacidad de liderazgo, la seguridad psicológica y la experiencia del aprendizaje.

Nitrous oxide for early analgesia in the emergency setting: a randomized, double-blind multicenter prehospital trial.

OBJECTIVES: Although 50% nitrous oxide (N(2) O) and oxygen is a widely used treatment, its efficacy had never been evaluated in the prehospital setting. The objective of this study was to demonstrate the efficacy of premixed N(2) O and oxygen in patients with out-of-hospital moderate traumatic acute pain. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, multicenter, double-blind trial enrolled patients with acute moderate pain (numeric rating scale [NRS] score between 4 and 6 out of 10) caused by trauma. Patients were assigned to receive either 50/50 N(2) O and oxygen 9 L/min (N(2) O group) or medical air (MA) 9 L/min (MA group), in ambulances from two nurse-staffed fire department centers. After the first 15 minutes, every patient received N(2) O and oxygen. The primary endpoint was pain relief at 15 minutes (T15), defined as a NRS ≤ 3 of 10. The NRS was measured every 5 minutes. Secondary endpoints were treatment safety and adverse events, time to analgesia, and patient and investigator satisfaction with analgesia. RESULTS: Sixty patients were included with no differences between groups in age (median = 34 years, interquartile range [IQR] = 23 to 53 years), sex (37 males, 66%), and initial median NRS of 6 (IQR = 5 to 6). At T15, 67% of the patients in the N(2) O group had an NRS score of 3 or lower versus 27% of those in the MA group (delta = 40%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 17% to 63%; p < 0.001). The median pain scores were lower in the N(2) O group at T15, 2 (IQR = 1 to 4) versus 5 (IQR = 3 to 6). There was a difference at 5 minutes that persisted at all subsequent time points. Four patients (one in the N(2) O group) experienced adverse events (nausea) during the protocol. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the efficacy of N(2) O for the treatment of pain from acute trauma in adults in the prehospital setting.