Safety attitudes, burnout and well-being among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: an Indo-Pacific regional cross-sectional study.

Introduction: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had an unprecedented impact in Asia and has placed significant burden on already stretched healthcare systems. We examined the impact of COVID-19 on the safety attitudes among healthcare workers (HCWs), as well as their associated demographic and occupational factors, and measures of burnout, depression and anxiety. Methods: A cross-sectional survey study utilising snowball sampling was performed involving doctors, nurses and allied health professions from 23 hospitals in Singapore, Malaysia, India and Indonesia between 29 May 2020 and 13 July 2020. This survey collated demographic data and workplace conditions and included three validated questionnaires: the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ), Oldenburg Burnout Inventory and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. We performed multivariate mixed-model regression to assess independent associations with the SAQ total percentage agree rate (PAR). Results: We obtained 3,163 responses. The SAQ total PARs were found to be 35.7%, 15.0%, 51.0% and 3.3% among the respondents from Singapore, Malaysia, India and Indonesia, respectively. Burnout scores were highest among respondents from Indonesia and lowest among respondents from India (70.9%-85.4% vs. 56.3%-63.6%, respectively). Multivariate analyses revealed that meeting burnout and depression thresholds and shifts lasting ≥12 h were significantly associated with lower SAQ total PAR. Conclusion: Addressing the factors contributing to high burnout and depression and placing strict limits on work hours per shift may contribute significantly towards improving safety culture among HCWs and should remain priorities during the pandemic.

Determinants of burnout and other aspects of psychological well-being in healthcare workers during the Covid-19 pandemic: A multinational cross-sectional study.

The Covid-19 pandemic has placed unprecedented pressure on healthcare systems and workers around the world. Such pressures may impact on working conditions, psychological wellbeing and perception of safety. In spite of this, no study has assessed the relationship between safety attitudes and psychological outcomes. Moreover, only limited studies have examined the relationship between personal characteristics and psychological outcomes during Covid-19. From 22nd March 2020 to 18th June 2020, healthcare workers from the United Kingdom, Poland, and Singapore were invited to participate using a self-administered questionnaire comprising the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ), Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) to evaluate safety culture, burnout and anxiety/depression. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine predictors of burnout, anxiety and depression. Of 3,537 healthcare workers who participated in the study, 2,364 (67%) screened positive for burnout, 701 (20%) for anxiety, and 389 (11%) for depression. Significant predictors of burnout included patient-facing roles: doctor (OR 2.10; 95% CI 1.49-2.95), nurse (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.04-1.84), and 'other clinical' (OR 2.02; 95% CI 1.45-2.82); being redeployed (OR 1.27; 95% CI 1.02-1.58), bottom quartile SAQ score (OR 2.43; 95% CI 1.98-2.99), anxiety (OR 4.87; 95% CI 3.92-6.06) and depression (OR 4.06; 95% CI 3.04-5.42). Significant factors inversely correlated with burnout included being tested for SARS-CoV-2 (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.51-0.82) and top quartile SAQ score (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.22-0.40). Significant factors associated with anxiety and depression, included burnout, gender, safety attitudes and job role. Our findings demonstrate a significant burden of burnout, anxiety, and depression amongst healthcare workers. A strong association was seen between SARS-CoV-2 testing, safety attitudes, gender, job role, redeployment and psychological state. These findings highlight the importance of targeted support services for at risk groups and proactive SARS-CoV-2 testing of healthcare workers.

Burnout and Associated Factors Among Health Care Workers in Singapore During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The strain on health care systems due to the COVID-19 pandemic has led to increased psychological distress among health care workers (HCWs). As this global crisis continues with little signs of abatement, we examine burnout and associated factors among HCWs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, administrative, and support staff in 4 public hospitals and 1 primary care service in Singapore 3 months after COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic. METHODS: Study questionnaire captured demographic and workplace environment information and comprised 3 validated instruments, namely the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI), Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Multivariate mixed model regression analyses were used to evaluate independent associations of mean OLBI-Disengagement and -Exhaustion scores. Further subgroup analysis was performed among redeployed HCWs. RESULTS: Among 11,286 invited HCWs, 3075 valid responses were received, giving an overall response rate of 27.2%. Mean OLBI scores were 2.38 and 2.50 for Disengagement and Exhaustion, respectively. Burnout thresholds in Disengagement and Exhaustion were met by 79.7% and 75.3% of respondents, respectively. On multivariate regression analysis, Chinese or Malay ethnicity, HADS anxiety or depression scores ≥8, shifts lasting ≥8 hours, and being redeployed were significantly associated with higher OLBI mean scores, whereas high SAQ scores were significantly associated with lower scores. Among redeployed HCWs, those redeployed to high-risk areas in a different facility (offsite) had lower burnout scores than those redeployed within their own work facility (onsite). A higher proportion of HCWs redeployed offsite assessed their training to be good or better compared with those redeployed onsite. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Every level of the health care workforce is susceptible to high levels of burnout during this pandemic. Modifiable workplace factors include adequate training, avoiding prolonged shifts ≥8 hours, and promoting safe working environments. Mitigating strategies should target every level of the health care workforce, including frontline and nonfrontline staff. Addressing and ameliorating burnout among HCWs should be a key priority for the sustainment of efforts to care for patients in the face of a prolonged pandemic.

What Has Been the Impact of Covid-19 on Safety Culture? A Case Study from a Large Metropolitan Healthcare Trust.

Covid-19 has placed an unprecedented demand on healthcare systems worldwide. A positive safety culture is associated with improved patient safety and, in turn, with patient outcomes. To date, no study has evaluated the impact of Covid-19 on safety culture. The Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ) was used to investigate safety culture at a large UK healthcare trust during Covid-19. Findings were compared with baseline data from 2017. Incident reporting from the year preceding the pandemic was also examined. SAQ scores of doctors and "other clinical staff", were relatively higher than the nursing group. During Covid-19, on univariate regression analysis, female gender, age 40-49 years, non-White ethnicity, and nursing job role were all associated with lower SAQ scores. Training and support for redeployment were associated with higher SAQ scores. On multivariate analysis, non-disclosed gender (-0.13), non-disclosed ethnicity (-0.11), nursing role (-0.15), and support (0.29) persisted to a level of significance. A significant decrease (p < 0.003) was seen in error reporting after the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. This is the first study to investigate SAQ during Covid-19. Differences in SAQ scores were observed during Covid-19 between professional groups when compared to baseline. Reductions in incident reporting were also seen. These changes may reflect perception of risk, changes in volume or nature of work. High-quality support for redeployed staff may be associated with improved safety perception during future pandemics.

L-ornithine L-aspartate for prevention and treatment of hepatic encephalopathy in people with cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic encephalopathy is a common complication of cirrhosis and has high associated morbidity and mortality. The condition is classified as overt if it is clinically apparent or minimal if only evident though psychometric testing. The exact pathogenesis of this syndrome is unknown although ammonia is thought to play a key role. L-ornithine L-aspartate has ammonia-lowering properties and may, therefore, benefit people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of L-ornithine L-aspartate versus placebo, no intervention, or other active interventions in people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy. SEARCH METHODS: We undertook electronic searches of The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and Science Citation Index Expanded to December 2017 and manual searches of meetings and conference proceedings; checks of bibliographies; and corresponded with investigators and pharmaceutical companies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials, irrespective of publication status, language, or blinding. We included participants with cirrhosis who had minimal or overt hepatic encephalopathy or who were at risk for developing hepatic encephalopathy. We compared: L-ornithine L-aspartate versus placebo or no intervention; and L-ornithine L-aspartate versus other active agents such as non-absorbable disaccharides, antibiotics, probiotics, or branched-chain amino acids. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors, working independently, retrieved data from published reports and correspondence with investigators and pharmaceutical companies. The primary outcomes were mortality, hepatic encephalopathy, and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented the results as risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group domains; we evaluated the risk of publication bias and other small trial effects in regression analyses; conducted subgroup and sensitivity analyses; and performed Trial Sequential Analyses. We determined the quality of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 36 randomised clinical trials, involving at least 2377 registered participants, which fulfilled our inclusion criteria including 10 unpublished randomised clinical trials. However, we were only able to access outcome data from 29 trials involving 1891 participants. Five of the included trials assessed prevention, while 31 trials assessed treatment. Five trials were at low risk of bias in the overall assessment of mortality; one trial was at low risk of bias in the assessment of the remaining outcomes.L-ornithine L-aspartate had a beneficial effect on mortality compared with placebo or no intervention when including all trials (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.72; I2 = 0%; 19 trials; 1489 participants; very low quality evidence), but not when the analysis was restricted to the trials at low risk of bias (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.06 to 3.58; 4 trials; 244 participants). It had a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy compared with placebo or no intervention when including all trials (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.83; 22 trials; 1375 participants; I2 = 62%; very low quality evidence), but not in the one trial at low risk of bias (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07; 63 participants). The analysis of serious adverse events showed a potential benefit of L-ornithine L-aspartate when including all randomised clinical trials (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.90; 1 trial; 1489 participants; I2 = 0%; very low quality evidence), but not in the one trial at low risk of bias for this outcome (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.15 to 4.65; 63 participants). The Trial Sequential Analyses of mortality, hepatic encephalopathy, and serious adverse events found insufficient evidence to support or refute beneficial effects. Subgroup analyses showed no difference in outcomes in the trials evaluating evaluating the prevention or treatment of either overt or minimal hepatic encephalopathy or trials evaluating oral versus intravenous administration We were unable to undertake a meta-analysis of the three trials involving 288 participants evaluating health-related quality of life. Overall, we found no difference between L-ornithine L-aspartate and placebo or no intervention in non-serious adverse events (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.77; 14 trials; 1076 participants; I2 = 40%). In comparison with lactulose, L-ornithine L-aspartate had no effect on mortality (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.11 to 4.17; 4 trials; 175 participants; I2 = 0%); hepatic encephalopathy (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.57); serious adverse events (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.11); or non-serious adverse events (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.18). In comparison with probiotics, L-ornithine L-aspartate had no effect on mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.11 to 9.51); serious adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.23 to 4.88); or changes in blood ammonia concentrations from baseline (RR -2.30 95% CI -6.08 to 1.48), but it had a possible beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.90). Finally, in comparison with rifaximin, L-ornithine L-aspartate had no effect on mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.03; 2 trials; 105 participants); hepatic encephalopathy (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.96); serious adverse events (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.42), or non-serious adverse events (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.42). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review suggest a possible beneficial effect of L-ornithine L-aspartate on mortality, hepatic encephalopathy, and serious adverse events in comparisons with placebo or no-intervention, but, because the quality of the evidence is very low, we are very uncertain about these findings. There was very low quality evidence of a possible beneficial effect of L-ornithine L-aspartate on hepatic encephalopathy, when compared with probiotics, but no other benefits were demonstrated in comparison with other active agents. Additional access to data from completed, but unpublished trials, and new randomised placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials are needed.

Flumazenil versus placebo or no intervention for people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic encephalopathy is a common complication of cirrhosis which results in poor brain functioning. The spectrum of changes associated with hepatic encephalopathy ranges from the clinically 'indiscernible' or minimal hepatic encephalopathy to the clinically 'obvious' or overt hepatic encephalopathy. Flumazenil is a synthetic benzodiazepine antagonist with high affinity for the central benzodiazepine recognition site. Flumazenil may benefit people with hepatic encephalopathy through an indirect negative allosteric modulatory effect on gamma-aminobutyric acid receptor function. The previous version of this review, which included 13 randomised clinical trials, found no effect of flumazenil on all-cause mortality, based on an analysis of 10 randomised clinical trials, but found a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy, based on an analysis of eight randomised clinical trials. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of flumazenil versus placebo or no intervention for people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and LILACS; meeting and conference proceedings; and bibliographies in May 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials regardless of publication status, blinding, or language in the analyses of benefits and harms, and observational studies in the assessment of harms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data independently. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and I2 values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group domains; determined the quality of the evidence using GRADE; evaluated the risk of small-study effects in regression analyses; and conducted trial sequential, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 14 eligible randomised clinical trials with 867 participants, the majority of whom had an acute episode of overt hepatic encephalopathy. In addition, we identified one ongoing randomised clinical trial. We were unable to gather outcome data from two randomised clinical trials with 25 participants. Thus, our analyses include 842 participants from 12 randomised clinical trials comparing flumazenil versus placebo. We classified one randomised clinical trial at low risk of bias in the overall assessment and the remaining randomised clinical trials at high risk of bias. The duration of follow-up ranged from a few minutes to two weeks, but it was less than one day in the majority of the trials.In total, 32/433 (7.4%) participants allocated to flumazenil versus 38/409 (9.3%) participants allocated to placebo died (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.16; 11 randomised clinical trials; low quality evidence). The Trial Sequential Analysis and the one randomised clinical trial assessed as low risk of bias (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.53) found no beneficial or harmful effects of flumazenil on all-cause mortality. The methods used to evaluate hepatic encephalopathy included several different clinical scales, electrophysiological variables, and psychometric tests. Flumazenil was associated with a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy when including all randomised clinical trials (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.80; 824 participants; nine randomised clinical trials; low quality evidence), or just the trial at low risk of bias (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.84; 527 participants). The Trial Sequential Analysis supported a beneficial effect of flumazenil on hepatic encephalopathy. The randomised clinical trials included little information about causes of death and little information on non-fatal serious adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low quality evidence suggesting a short-term beneficial effect of flumazenil on hepatic encephalopathy in people with cirrhosis, but no evidence of an effect on all-cause mortality. Additional evidence from large, high quality randomised clinical trials is needed to evaluate the potential benefits and harms of flumazenil in people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy.

Flumazenil versus placebo or no intervention for people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic encephalopathy is a common complication of cirrhosis which results in poor brain functioning. The spectrum of changes associated with hepatic encephalopathy ranges from the clinically 'indiscernible' or minimal hepatic encephalopathy to the clinically 'obvious' or overt hepatic encephalopathy. Flumazenil is a synthetic benzodiazepine antagonist with high affinity for the central benzodiazepine recognition site. Flumazenil may benefit people with hepatic encephalopathy through an indirect negative allosteric modulatory effect on gamma-aminobutyric acid receptor function. The previous version of this review, which included 13 randomised clinical trials, found no effect of flumazenil on all-cause mortality, based on an analysis of 10 randomised clinical trials, but found a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy, based on an analysis of eight randomised clinical trials. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of flumazenil versus placebo or no intervention for people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and LILACS; meeting and conference proceedings; and bibliographies in May 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials regardless of publication status, blinding, or language in the analyses of benefits and harms, and observational studies in the assessment of harms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data independently. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and I2 values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group domains; determined the quality of the evidence using GRADE; evaluated the risk of small-study effects in regression analyses; and conducted trial sequential, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 14 eligible randomised clinical trials with 867 participants, the majority of whom had an acute episode of overt hepatic encephalopathy. In addition, we identified one ongoing randomised clinical trial. We were unable to gather outcome data from 2 randomised clinical trials with 25 participants. Thus, our analyses include 842 participants from 12 randomised clinical trials comparing flumazenil versus placebo. We classified one randomised clinical trial at low risk of bias in the overall assessment and the remaining randomised clinical trials at high risk of bias. The duration of follow-up ranged from a few minutes to two weeks, but it was less than one day in the majority of the trials.In total, 32/433 (7.4%) participants allocated to flumazenil versus 38/409 (9.3%) participants allocated to placebo died (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.16; 11 randomised clinical trials; low quality evidence). The Trial Sequential Analysis and the one randomised clinical trial assessed as low risk of bias (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.53) found no beneficial or harmful effects of flumazenil on all-cause mortality. The methods used to evaluate hepatic encephalopathy included several different clinical scales, electrophysiological variables, and psychometric tests. Flumazenil was associated with a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy when including all randomised clinical trials (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.80; 824 participants; 9 randomised clinical trials; low quality evidence), or just the trial at low risk of bias (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.84; 527 participants). The Trial Sequential Analysis supported a beneficial effect of flumazenil on hepatic encephalopathy. The randomised clinical trials included little information about causes of death and little information on non-fatal serious adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low quality evidence suggesting a short-term beneficial effect of flumazenil on hepatic encephalopathy in people with cirrhosis, but no evidence of an effect on all-cause mortality. Additional evidence from large, high quality randomised clinical trials is needed to evaluate the potential benefits and harms of flumazenil in people with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy.

Accelerating in situ endothelialisation of cardiovascular bypass grafts.

The patency of synthetic cardiovascular grafts in the long run is synonymous with their ability to inhibit the processes of intimal hyperplasia, thrombosis and calcification. In the human body, the endothelium of blood vessels exhibits characteristics that inhibit such processes. As such it is not surprising that research in tissue engineering is directed towards replicating the functionality of the natural endothelium in cardiovascular grafts. This can be done either by seeding the endothelium within the lumen of the grafts prior to implantation or by designing the graft such that in situ endothelialisation takes place after implantation. Due to certain difficulties identified with in vitro endothelialisation, in situ endothelialisation, which will be the focus of this article, has garnered interest in the last years. To promote in situ endothelialisation, the following aspects can be taken into account: (1) Endothelial progenital cell mobilization, adhesion and proliferation; (2) Regulating differentiation of progenitor cells to mature endothelium; (3) Preventing thrombogenesis and inflammation during endothelialisation. This article aims to review and compile recent developments to promote the in situ endothelialisation of cardiovascular grafts and subsequently improve their patency, which can also have widespread implications in the field of tissue engineering.