Constructing therapeutic support and negotiating competing agendas: A discourse analysis of vocational advice provided to individuals who are absent from work due to ill-health.

Work participation is known to benefit people's overall health and wellbeing, but accessing vocational support during periods of sickness absence to facilitate return-to-work can be challenging for many people. In this study, we explored how vocational advice was delivered by trained vocational support workers (VSWs) to people who had been signed-off from work by their General Practitioner (GP), as part of a feasibility study testing a vocational advice intervention. We investigated the discursive and interactional strategies employed by VSWs and people absent from work, to pursue their joint and respective goals. Theme-oriented discourse analysis was carried out on eight VSW consultations. These consultations were shown to be complex interactions, during which VSWs utilised a range of strategies to provide therapeutic support in discussions about work. These included; signalling empathy with the person's perspective; positively evaluating their personal qualities and prior actions; reflecting individuals' views back to them to show they had been heard and understood; fostering a collaborative approach to action-planning; and attempting to reassure individuals about their return-to-work concerns. Some individuals were reluctant to engage in return-to-work planning, resulting in back-and-forth interactional negotiations between theirs and the VSW's individual goals and agendas. This led to VSWs putting in considerable interactional 'work' to subtly shift the discussion towards return-to-work planning. The discursive strategies we have identified have implications for training health professionals to facilitate work-orientated conversations with their patients, and will also inform training provided to VSWs ahead of a randomised controlled trial.

Attitudes and practices of ophthalmology doctors in London (UK) on the importance of discussing work as a clinical outcome with patients during consultations: A cross sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Limited research suggests that non-occupational health doctors rarely discuss occupation with their patients. There is a gap in research regarding the attitudes and practices of doctors towards discussing patient occupation and return to work. The aim of this work was to explore the attitudes of ophthalmology doctors towards work as a clinical outcome and assess the need for occupational health training among participants (doctors). METHODS: A cross-sectional survey among doctors working in ophthalmology in two London teaching hospitals. The survey focused on the attitudes of doctors towards 'work' as a clinical outcome, their practices of asking patients about occupation, their perceived level of competency in this area of clinical practice and the level of training doctors had received in this field. Descriptive data analysis was undertaken and results presented as frequencies and proportions. RESULTS: The response rate was 30/72 (42%). Approximately a quarter (8/30;27%) of doctors 'always' discussed return to work during care planning whilst the majority (25/30;87%) of doctors agreed or strongly agreed that this should always be the case. Over half of the doctors had received no formal OH training on how to discuss or assess the impact of health on work and only 17/30 (57%) considered themselves competent in discussing these work outcomes with patients. Over half agreed that additional training would be useful, with the majority believing that it would be most useful at all stages of medical training. CONCLUSION: We found the majority of ophthalmology doctors regard 'return to work' as an important clinical outcome yet most do not routinely discuss work outcomes with patients to inform care planning. Majority of doctors lack training in how to discuss issues relating to work and would benefit from additional OH training.

Ethnic differences in risk of severe Covid-19: To what extent are they driven by exposure?

BACKGROUND: This study quantifies the risk of Covid-19 among ethnic groups of healthcare staff during the first pandemic wave in England. METHODS: We analysed data on 959 356 employees employed by 191 National Health Service trusts during 1 January 2019 to 31 July 2020, comparing rates of Covid-19 sickness absence in different ethnic groups. RESULTS: In comparison with White ethnic groups, the risk of short-duration Covid-19 sickness absence was modestly elevated in South Asian but not Black groups. However, all Black and ethnic minority groups were at higher risk of prolonged Covid-19 sickness absence. Odds ratios (ORs) relative to White ethnicity were more than doubled in South Asian groups (Indian OR 2.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.36-2.63; Pakistani OR 2.38, 2.15-2.64; Bangladeshi OR 2.38, 1.98-2.86), while that for Black African ethnicity was 1.82 (1.71-1.93). In nursing/midwifery staff, the association of ethnicity with prolonged Covid-19 sickness absence was strong; the odds of South Asian nurses/midwives having a prolonged episode of Covid-19 sickness absence were increased 3-fold (OR 3.05, 2.82-3.30). CONCLUSIONS: Residual differences in risk of short term Covid-19 sickness absences among ethnic groups may reflect differences in non-occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Our results indicate ethnic differences in vulnerability to Covid-19, which may be only partly explained by medical comorbidities.

Changing patterns of sickness absence among healthcare workers in England during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Patterns of sickness absence shed useful light on disease occurrence and illness-related behaviours in working populations. METHODS: We analysed prospectively collected, pseudonymized data on 959 356 employees who were continuously employed by National Health Service trusts in England from 1 January 2019 to 31 July 2020, comparing the frequency of new sickness absence in 2020 with that at corresponding times in 2019. RESULTS: After exclusion of episodes directly related to COVID-19, the overall incidence of sickness absence during the initial 10 weeks of the pandemic (March-May 2020) was more than 20% lower than in corresponding weeks of 2019. Trends for specific categories of illness varied substantially, with a fall by 24% for cancer, but an increase for mental illness. A doubling of new absences for pregnancy-related disorders during May-July of 2020 was limited to women with earlier COVID-19 sickness absence. CONCLUSIONS: Various factors will have contributed to the large and divergent changes that were observed. The findings reinforce concerns regarding delays in diagnosis and treatment of cancers and support a need to plan for a large backlog of treatment for many other diseases. Further research should explore the rise in absence for pregnancy-related disorders among women with earlier COVID-19 sickness absence.

Risks of COVID-19 by occupation in NHS workers in England.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify occupational risks of COVID-19 among healthcare staff during the first wave (9 March 2020-31 July 2020) of the pandemic in England. METHODS: We used pseudonymised data on 902 813 individuals employed by 191 National Health Service trusts to explore demographic and occupational risk factors for sickness absence ascribed to COVID-19 (n=92 880). We estimated ORs by multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: With adjustment for employing trust, demographic characteristics and previous frequency of sickness absence, risk relative to administrative/clerical occupations was highest in 'additional clinical services' (care assistants and other occupations directly supporting those in clinical roles) (OR 2.31 (2.25 to 2.37)), registered nursing and midwifery professionals (OR 2.28 (2.23 to 2.34)) and allied health professionals (OR 1.94 (1.88 to 2.01)) and intermediate in doctors and dentists (OR 1.55 (1.50 to 1.61)). Differences in risk were higher after the employing trust had started to care for documented patients with COVID-19, and were reduced, but not eliminated, following additional adjustment for exposure to infected patients or materials, assessed by a job-exposure matrix. For prolonged COVID-19 sickness absence (episodes lasting >14 days), the variation in risk by staff group was somewhat greater. CONCLUSIONS: After allowance for possible bias and confounding by non-occupational exposures, we estimated that relative risks for COVID-19 among most patient-facing occupations were between 1.5 and 2.5. The highest risks were in those working in additional clinical services, nursing and midwifery and in allied health professions. Better protective measures for these staff groups should be a priority. COVID-19 may meet criteria for compensation as an occupational disease in some healthcare occupations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN36352994.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on sickness absence for mental ill health in National Health Service staff.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the patterns of sickness absence in National Health Service (NHS) staff attributable to mental ill health during the first wave of the COVID-19 epidemic in March-July 2020. DESIGN: Case-referent analysis of a secondary dataset. SETTING: NHS Trusts in England. PARTICIPANTS: Pseudonymised data on 959 356 employees who were continuously employed by NHS trusts during 1 January 2019 to 31 July 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Trends in the burden of sickness absence due to mental ill health from 2019 to 2020 according to demographic, regional and occupational characteristics. RESULTS: Over the study period, 164 202 new sickness absence episodes for mental ill health were recorded in 12.5% (119 525) of the study sample. There was a spike of sickness absence for mental ill health in March-April 2020 (899 730 days lost) compared with 519 807 days in March-April 2019; the surge was driven by an increase in new episodes of long-term absence and had diminished by May/June 2020. The increase was greatest in those aged >60 years (227%) and among employees of Asian and Black ethnic origin (109%-136%). Among doctors and dentists, the number of days absent declined by 12.7%. The biggest increase was in London (122%) and the smallest in the East Midlands (43.7%); the variation between regions reflected the rates of COVID-19 sickness absence during the same period. CONCLUSION: Although the COVID-19 epidemic led to an increase in sickness absence attributed to mental ill health in NHS staff, this had substantially declined by May/June 2020, corresponding with the decrease in pressures at work as the first wave of the epidemic subsided.

A case management occupational health model to facilitate earlier return to work of NHS staff with common mental health disorders: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: The NHS is the biggest employer in the UK. Depression and anxiety are common reasons for sickness absence among staff. Evidence suggests that an intervention based on a case management model using a biopsychosocial approach could be cost-effective and lead to earlier return to work for staff with common mental health disorders. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an early occupational health referral and case management intervention to facilitate the return to work of NHS staff on sick leave with any common mental health disorder (e.g. depression or anxiety). DESIGN: A multicentre mixed-methods feasibility study with embedded process evaluation and economic analyses. The study comprised an updated systematic review, survey of care as usual, and development of an intervention in consultation with key stakeholders. Although this was not a randomised controlled trial, the study design comprised two arms where participants received either the intervention or care as usual. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were NHS staff on sick leave for 7 or more consecutive days but less than 90 consecutive days, with a common mental health disorder. INTERVENTION: The intervention involved early referral to occupational health combined with standardised work-focused case management. CONTROL/COMPARATOR: Participants in the control arm received care as usual. PRIMARY OUTCOME: The primary outcome was the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention, study processes (including methods of recruiting participants) and data collection tools to measure return to work, episodes of sickness absence, workability (a worker's functional ability to perform their job), occupational functioning, symptomatology and cost-effectiveness proposed for use in a main trial. RESULTS: Forty articles and two guidelines were included in an updated systematic review. A total of 49 of the 126 (39%) occupational health providers who were approached participated in a national survey of care as usual. Selected multidisciplinary stakeholders contributed to the development of the work-focused case management intervention (including a training workshop). Six NHS trusts (occupational health departments) agreed to take part in the study, although one trust withdrew prior to participant recruitment, citing staff shortages. At mixed intervention sites, participants were sequentially allocated to each arm, where possible. Approximately 1938 (3.9%) NHS staff from the participating sites were on sick leave with a common mental health disorder during the study period. Forty-two sick-listed NHS staff were screened for eligibility on receipt of occupational health management referrals. Twenty-four (57%) participants were consented: 11 (46%) received the case management intervention and 13 (54%) received care as usual. Follow-up data were collected from 11 out of 24 (46%) participants at 3 months and 10 out of 24 (42%) participants at 6 months. The case management intervention and case manager training were found to be acceptable and inexpensive to deliver. Possible contamination issues are likely in a future trial if participants are individually randomised at mixed intervention sites. HARMS: No adverse events were reported. LIMITATIONS: The method of identification and recruitment of eligible sick-listed staff was ineffective in practice because uptake of referral to occupational health was low, but a new targeted method has been devised. CONCLUSION: All study questions were addressed. Difficulties raising organisational awareness of the study coupled with a lack of change in occupational health referral practices by line managers affected the identification and recruitment of participants. Strategies to overcome these barriers in a main trial were identified. The case management intervention was fit for purpose and acceptable to deliver in the NHS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14621901. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Anxiety and depression are common causes of sickness absence in the NHS. This can harm patient care. Previous research has shown that offering early support to NHS staff on sick leave with a common mental health disorder is important to aid recovery and rehabilitation. However, it is not currently known how best to support staff in returning to work. The purpose of this research was to test the feasibility of a large-scale study to see if specially trained occupational health nurses would be effective in getting NHS staff with these problems back to work quicker. We reviewed the recent scientific literature and did a survey of NHS occupational health departments to find out what was currently offered to such staff. We developed a new work-focused case management intervention and trained six occupational health nurses to deliver it. We recruited 24 NHS staff who were on sick leave with a common mental health disorder (such as depression or anxiety) and allocated 11 to receive the new intervention and the rest to receive usual support. Participants were invited to complete three questionnaires and we collected information from the participating occupational health sites. We also interviewed participants, managers, human resource staff and occupational health nurses to find out what they thought about being involved in the study. We found that the new case management intervention had potential benefits. However, it would not be possible to run a trial to evaluate the intervention until a better way can be found to encourage the early referral of sick staff to occupational health.

A behaviour change package to prevent hand dermatitis in nurses working in health care: the SCIN cluster RCT.

BACKGROUND: Although strategies have been developed to minimise the risk of occupational hand dermatitis in nurses, their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness remain unclear. OBJECTIVES: The Skin Care Intervention in Nurses trial tested the hypothesis that a behaviour change package intervention, coupled with provision of hand moisturisers, could reduce the point prevalence of hand dermatitis when compared with standard care among nurses working in the NHS. The secondary aim was to assess the impact of the intervention on participants' beliefs and behaviour regarding hand care, and the cost-effectiveness of the intervention in comparison with normal care. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Thirty-five NHS hospital trusts/health boards/universities. PARTICIPANTS: First-year student nurses with a history of atopic tendency, and full-time intensive care unit nurses. INTERVENTION: Sites were randomly allocated to be 'intervention plus' or 'intervention light'. Participants at 'intervention plus' sites received access to a bespoke online behaviour change package intervention, coupled with personal supplies of moisturising cream (student nurses) and optimal availability of moisturising cream (intensive care unit nurses). Nurses at 'intervention light' sites received usual care, including a dermatitis prevention leaflet. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The difference between intervention plus and intervention light sites in the change of point prevalence of visible hand dermatitis was measured from images taken at baseline and at follow-up. RANDOMISATION: Fourteen sites were randomised to the intervention plus arm, and 21 sites were randomised to the intervention light arm. BLINDING: The participants, trial statistician, methodologist and the dermatologists interpreting the hand photographs were blinded to intervention assignment. NUMBERS ANALYSED: An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted on data from 845 student nurses and 1111 intensive care unit nurses. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat analysis showed no evidence that the risk of developing dermatitis was greater in the intervention light group than in the intervention plus group (student nurses: odds ratio 1.25, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 2.69; intensive care unit nurses: odds ratio 1.41, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 2.44). Both groups had high levels of baseline beliefs about the benefits of using hand moisturisers before, during and after work. The frequency of use of hand moisturisers before, during and after shifts was significantly higher in the intensive care unit nurses in the intervention plus arm at follow-up than in the comparator group nurses. For student nurses, the intervention plus group mean costs were £2 lower than those for the comparator and 0.00002 more quality-adjusted life-years were gained. For intensive care unit nurses, costs were £4 higher and 0.0016 fewer quality-adjusted life-years were gained. HARMS: No adverse events were reported. LIMITATIONS: Only 44.5% of participants in the intervention plus arm accessed the behaviour change package. CONCLUSION: The intervention did not result in a statistically significant decrease in the prevalence of hand dermatitis in the intervention plus group. FUTURE WORK: Participants had a high level of baseline beliefs about the importance of using hand moisturisers before, during and after work. Future research should focus on how workplace culture can be changed in order for that knowledge to be actioned. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN53303171. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 58. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

This study was designed to prevent nurses from developing hand dermatitis (eczema). The study recruited student and intensive care unit nurses who were at high risk of hand dermatitis. Overall, 35 study sites took part. Each site was randomised to be in either the 'intervention plus' or the 'intervention light' group. Participants in the intervention plus sites received access to a web-based intervention to change nurses' behaviour to improve hand care together with a written leaflet with advice on how to prevent dermatitis. The student nurse participants in the intervention plus group were provided with personal supplies of hand moisturisers to use during their clinical placements and the study team ensured that the intensive care unit nurses in the intervention plus arm had access to moisturising creams on the wards. Those in the intervention light group received only the written leaflet with advice on how to prevent dermatitis. All participants were reminded to contact their occupational health service early on if they developed hand dermatitis during the study. The main aim was to see if there was a difference between the proportion of participants in the intervention plus and intervention light groups who had hand dermatitis at the beginning of the study and at the end. The study collected photographs of hands at the time of recruitment and after 12 months. Participants completed questionnaires about their skin. The results showed that there was no evidence that the risk of developing hand dermatitis in the intervention light group was greater than that in the intervention plus group.

The development of a protocol for diagnosing hand dermatitis from photographic images.

BACKGROUND: A hand photography protocol was needed to ascertain the presence and severity of dermatitis in a trial testing the effectiveness of a behaviour change intervention to prevent hand dermatitis in nurses. METHODS: We developed the protocol in 3 stages: (1) we established a procedure for collecting hand photographs; (2) we conducted a stepwise validation process to agree rules for diagnosing and determining the severity of hand dermatitis; and (3) we trained a research nurse to screen out "clear" cases. RESULTS: We developed and trained fieldworkers (n = 97) in a procedure for collecting hand photographs. Study dermatologists established interpretation rules to diagnose and determine the severity of dermatitis from photographs. Prior to the establishment of the rules, interobserver agreement between the 2 dermatologists on the presence or absence of hand dermatitis was moderate (κ = 0.5). At the final stage of the validation process, the dermatologists agreed on 88% cases from independent assessments, with consensus being reached for the remaining 12% following joint deliberation. Following training, a subgroup analysis of 250 cases screened by the nurse and characterized as "clear" found that 2 (0.8%) "positive" cases were missed. CONCLUSION: We have developed a hand photography protocol that may be used in other studies or in hand dermatitis health surveillance programmes.

A behavioural change package to prevent hand dermatitis in nurses working in the national health service (the SCIN trial): study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hand dermatitis can be a serious health problem in healthcare workers. While a range of skin care strategies and policy directives have been developed in recent years to minimise the risk, their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness remain unclear. Evidence now suggests that psychological theory can facilitate behaviour change with respect to improved hand care practices. Therefore, we will test the hypothesis that a behavioural change intervention to improve hand care, based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour and implementation intentions, coupled with provision of hand moisturisers, can produce a clinically useful reduction in the occurrence of hand dermatitis, when compared to standard care, among nurses working in the UK National Health Service (NHS) who are particularly at risk. Secondary aims will be to assess impacts on participants' beliefs and behaviour regarding hand care. In addition, we will assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention in comparison with normal care. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a cluster randomised controlled trial at 35 NHS hospital trusts/health boards/universities, focussing on student nurses with a previous history of atopic disease or hand eczema and on nurses in intensive care units. Nurses at 'intervention-light' sites will be managed according to what would currently be regarded as best practice, with provision of an advice leaflet about optimal hand care to prevent hand dermatitis and encouragement to contact their occupational health (OH) department early if hand dermatitis occurs. Nurses at 'intervention-plus' sites will additionally receive a behavioural change programme (BCP) with on-going active reinforcement of its messages, and enhanced provision of moisturising cream. The impact of the interventions will be compared using information collected by questionnaires and through standardised photographs of the hands and wrists, collected at baseline and after 12 months follow-up. In addition, we will assemble relevant economic data for an analysis of costs and benefits, and collect information from various sources to evaluate processes. Statistical analysis will be by multi-level regression modelling to allow for clustering by site, and will compare the prevalence of outcome measures at follow-up after adjustment for values at baseline. The principal outcome measure will be the prevalence of visible hand dermatitis as assessed by the study dermatologists. In addition, several secondary outcome measures will be assessed. DISCUSSION: This trial will assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of an intervention to prevent hand dermatitis in nurses in the United Kigdom. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN53303171 : date of registration, 21 June 2013.