Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
Add more filters











Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
J Spec Oper Med ; 23(2): 60-68, 2023 Jun 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37071890

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease pandemic has pro-foundly affected emergency medical services (EMS) profes-sionals, but the emotional impact is unknown. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey of North Carolina EMS profes-sionals from April to May 2021. EMS professionals on an ac-tive roster were included. With pandemic-related perceptions, the 15-item Posttraumatic Maladaptive Beliefs Scale (PMBS) was used to quantify the severity of maladaptive cognition. Significant univariate variables were used to create a hier-archical linear regression to assess the potential impact of pandemic-related factors on maladaptive cognition scores. RESULTS: Overall, 811 respondents were included; of those, 33.3% were female, 6.7% were minorities, and 3.2% were Latinx; the mean age was 41.11 ± 12.42 years. Mean scores on the PMBS were 37.12 ± 13.06 and ranged from 15 to 93. PMBS scores were 4.62, 3.57, and 3.99 points higher, respec-tively, in those with increased anxiety, those who trusted their sources of information, and those who reported to work de-spite being symptomatic. Pandemic-specific factors accounted for 10.6% of the variance in PMBS total scores (ΔR2 = 0.106, ΔF[9, 792]; p < .001). Psychopathological factors accounted for an additional 4.7% of the variance in PMBS total scores (ΔR2 = 0.047, ΔF[3, 789]; p < .001). CONCLUSION: Given that 10.6% of the difference in PMBS scores can be explained by pandemic- related factors, maladaptive cognitions in EMS are a considerable concern and could lead to the development of significant psychopathology post-trauma.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Emergency Medical Services , Humans , Female , Adult , Middle Aged , Male , Pandemics , Cross-Sectional Studies , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cognition
2.
West J Emerg Med ; 23(4): 570-578, 2022 Jul 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35980411

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Unvaccinated emergency medical services (EMS) personnel are at increased risk of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and potentially transmitting the virus to their families, coworkers, and patients. Effective vaccines for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus exist; however, vaccination rates among EMS professionals remain largely unknown. Consequently, we sought to document vaccination rates of EMS professionals and identify predictors of vaccination uptake. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of North Carolina EMS professionals after the COVID-19 vaccines were widely available. The survey assessed vaccination status as well as beliefs regarding COVID-19 illness and vaccine effectiveness. Prediction of vaccine uptake was modeled using logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 860 EMS professionals completed the survey, of whom 74.7% reported receiving the COVID-19 vaccination. Most respondents believed that COVID-19 is a serious threat to the population, that they are personally at higher risk of infection, that vaccine side effects are outweighed by illness prevention, and the vaccine is safe and effective. Despite this, only 18.7% supported mandatory vaccination for EMS professionals. Statistically significant differences were observed between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups regarding vaccine safety and effectiveness, recall of employer vaccine recommendation, perceived risk of infection, degree of threat to the population, and trust in government to take actions to limit the spread of disease. Unvaccinated respondents cited reasons such as belief in personal health and natural immunity as protectors against infection, concerns about vaccine safety and effectiveness, inadequate vaccine knowledge, and lack of an employer mandate for declining the vaccine. Predictors of vaccination included belief in vaccine safety (odds ratio [OR] 5.5, P=<0.001) and effectiveness (OR 4.6, P=<0.001); importance of vaccination to protect patients (OR 15.5, P=<0.001); perceived personal risk of infection (OR 1.8, P=0.04); previous receipt of influenza vaccine (OR 2.5, P=0.003); and sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision about vaccination (OR 2.4, P=0.024). CONCLUSION: In this survey of EMS professionals, over a quarter remained unvaccinated for COVID-19. Given the identified predictors of vaccine acceptance, EMS systems should focus on countering misinformation through employee educational campaigns as well as on developing policies regarding workforce immunization requirements.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Emergency Medical Services , Health Personnel , Vaccination , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19 Vaccines/supply & distribution , Cross-Sectional Studies , Decision Making , Health Personnel/psychology , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Health Surveys , Humans , Influenza Vaccines/administration & dosage , North Carolina , Occupational Health , Patient Safety , Vaccination/legislation & jurisprudence , Vaccination/psychology , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data
3.
Am J Crit Care ; 29(1): 61-69, 2020 01 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31968084

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Admission Discharge Transfer-Synergy Model Acuity Tool (ADT-SMAT) was developed to quantify patient intervention intensity and patient response variability and to capture nurses' critical thinking. The tool is based on the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses Synergy Model for Patient Care. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the ADT-SMAT is reliable and valid for predicting the level of care for admission, discharge, and transfer of critically ill patients. Methods Reliability was examined by using interrater reliability, intraclass coefficient, and effect size analyses to evaluate physiological variables and total calculated ADT-SMAT score in 246 patients. Content validity was determined in consultation with critical care nurses, and construct validity was examined by assessing the correlation between ADT-SMAT scores and other convergent and divergent constructs. RESULTS: The ADT-SMAT showed strong reliability for measuring the physiological variables and total score, with an intraclass coefficient of 0.930. The value of Cohen d determining the effect size for each element of the ADT-SMAT was less than 0.20 for every element, indicating that substantial differences in scoring did not occur. The validity of the ADT-SMAT requires additional testing. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study attempting to correlate Synergy Model patient characteristics and acuity while integrating nurses' critical decision-making process. With further testing, the ADT-SMAT could be a valuable tool to quantify and standardize patient characteristics in determining the appropriate level of care associated with admission, discharge, and transfer decisions.


Subject(s)
Critical Care Nursing , Nursing Assessment , Patient Acuity , Patient Admission , Patient Discharge , Patient Transfer , Decision Making , Humans , Reproducibility of Results , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL