Testing an Intervention to Improve Health Care Worker Well-Being During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Stress First Aid is an evidence-informed peer-to-peer support intervention to mitigate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the well-being of health care workers (HCWs). Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of a tailored peer-to-peer support intervention compared with usual care to support HCWs' well-being at hospitals and federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized clinical trial comprised 3 cohorts of HCWs who were enrolled from March 2021 through July 2022 at 28 hospitals and FQHCs in the US. Participating sites were matched as pairs by type, size, and COVID-19 burden and then randomized to the intervention arm or usual care arm (any programs already in place to support HCW well-being). The HCWs were surveyed before and after peer-to-peer support intervention implementation. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis was used to evaluate the intervention's effect on outcomes, including general psychological distress and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Intervention: The peer-to-peer support intervention was delivered to HCWs by site champions who received training and subsequently trained the HCWs at their site. Recipients of the intervention were taught to respond to their own and their peers' stress reactions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were general psychological distress and PTSD. General psychological distress was measured with the Kessler 6 instrument, and PTSD was measured with the PTSD Checklist. Results: A total of 28 hospitals and FQHCs with 2077 HCWs participated. Both preintervention and postintervention surveys were completed by 2077 HCWs, for an overall response rate of 28% (41% at FQHCs and 26% at hospitals). A total of 862 individuals (696 females [80.7%]) were from sites that were randomly assigned to the intervention arm; the baseline mean (SD) psychological distress score was 5.86 (5.70) and the baseline mean (SD) PTSD score was 16.11 (16.07). A total of 1215 individuals (947 females [78.2%]) were from sites assigned to the usual care arm; the baseline mean (SD) psychological distress score was 5.98 (5.62) and the baseline mean (SD) PTSD score was 16.40 (16.43). Adherence to the intervention was 70% for FQHCs and 32% for hospitals. The ITT analyses revealed no overall treatment effect for psychological distress score (0.238 [95% CI, -0.310 to 0.785] points) or PTSD symptom score (0.189 [95% CI, -1.068 to 1.446] points). Post hoc analyses examined the heterogeneity of treatment effect by age group with consistent age effects observed across primary outcomes (psychological distress and PTSD). Among HCWs in FQHCs, there were significant and clinically meaningful treatment effects for HCWs 30 years or younger: a more than 4-point reduction for psychological distress (-4.552 [95% CI, -8.067 to -1.037]) and a nearly 7-point reduction for PTSD symptom scores (-6.771 [95% CI, -13.224 to -0.318]). Conclusions and Relevance: This trial found that this peer-to-peer support intervention did not improve well-being outcomes for HCWs overall but had a protective effect against general psychological distress and PTSD in HCWs aged 30 years or younger in FQHCs, which had higher intervention adherence. Incorporating this peer-to-peer support intervention into medical training, with ongoing support over time, may yield beneficial results in both standard care and during public health crises. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04723576.

'You just don't feel like your work goes recognised': healthcare worker experiences of tension related to public discourse around the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the impact of public discourse and reaction around the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare worker (HCW) experiences and well-being caring for patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted 60 min in-depth interviews with 11 physicians and 12 nurses who were providing care to patients with COVID-19 in acute care settings at two health systems in the Western USA. Interviews were conducted in Spring-Summer 2022 using a semi-structured interview protocol that guided respondents through different stages of the pandemic. RESULTS: Three themes emerged from the data around providing care in the unique social context of the COVID-19 pandemic including: (1) public polarisation and disagreement with science; (2) feelings of hope and optimism during the pandemic and (3) the compounded strain of providing care within this unique social context of the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: To prepare for future pandemics, improved public health communications and social-emotional supports for HCWs are critical to ameliorate the physical and emotional impacts related to the social context of modern US pandemic response.

"It Haunts Me": Impact of COVID-19 Deaths on Frontline Clinicians In Acute Care Settings-A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented conditions for clinicians providing end-of-life care in acute care settings, yet almost 2 years since the start of the pandemic, little is known about its impact on clinicians. OBJECTIVES: To qualitatively explore how clinicians experienced their role as they cared for dying patients with COVID-19 during the pandemic and the impact of these experiences on their lives as health care professionals. METHODS: In-depth, hour-long interviews were conducted by phone in the spring of 2022 at a single time point with 23 physicians and nurses in critical care and emergency department settings from 2 health systems in California. The goal was to elicit perspectives on experiences with end-of-life care and the long-term impact of these experiences. Clinicians were asked to reflect on the different stages of the pandemic, and interviews were analyzed using a thematic analysis. RESULTS: The interviews highlighted 2 primary themes around provision of end-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic. First, clinicians described challenges around their clinical duties of providing care to dying patients, which included decision-making dilemmas and professionalism challenges. Second, clinicians described the emotional aspects around end-of-life care situations they experienced, including communication with family members, "being patients' family members" at the end of life, and various degrees of meaning-making and remembrance of these experiences. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight the sustained and cumulative emotional challenges and burden clinicians are still shouldering more than 2 years after the start of the pandemic.

The U.S. Equity-First Vaccination Initiative: Impacts and Lessons Learned.

The one-year U.S. Equity-First Vaccination Initiative (EVI), launched in April 2021, aimed to reduce racial inequities in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination across five demonstration cities (Baltimore, Chicago, Houston, Newark, and Oakland) and over the longer term strengthen the United States' public health system to achieve more-equitable outcomes. This initiative comprised nearly 100 community-based organizations (CBOs), who led hyper-local work to increase vaccination access and confidence in communities of individuals who identify as Black, Indigenous, and People of Color. In this study, the second of two on the initiative, the authors examine the results of the EVI. They look at the initiative's activities, effects, and challenges, and provide recommendations for how to support and sustain this hyper-local community-led approach and strengthen the public health system in the United States.

Diverse Parental Perspectives of the Social and Educational Needs for Expanding Newborn Screening through Genomic Sequencing.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the parental views, attitudes, and preferences of expanded newborn screening (NBS) through genomic sequencing. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a semi-structured interview study with English and Spanish speaking mothers who had given birth within the USA in the past 5 years. The interviews explored opinions of expanding NBS, ethical and privacy concerns, and educational and social needs. RESULTS: All participants were interested in some degree of NBS expansion. However, there were differing opinions about the characteristics of conditions that should be included with less consensus for conditions with low penetrance, those without approved treatment, or onset outside of early childhood. All parents endorsed potential medical utility but also nonmedical utility as a motivating factor including being able to prepare and not being surprised by health issues as they occurred. Most felt that it was important to have some choice about the conditions screened, and many expressed the importance of proper education to make an informed choice and a desire to receive this education in the prenatal period. Responses to the type of education and information needed to make an informed decision varied. CONCLUSIONS: Parents anticipate value in expanded NBS through genomic sequencing both for medical and nonmedical/personal utility. In order to successfully implement expanded NBS, prospective parents need more and earlier education about the process. These needs may differ by language and culture. Information needs to be easily accessible and to be curated by appropriate experts and stakeholders, including parents representative of the diversity of the USA.

Columbia COVID-19 Student Service Corps: Harnessing student skills and galvanizing the power of service learning.

The COVID-19 pandemic in New York City led to the forced rapid transformation of the medical school curriculum as well as increased critical needs to the health system. In response, a group of faculty and student leaders at CUIMC developed the COVID-19 Student Service Corps (Columbia CSSC). The CSSC is an interprofessional service-learning organization that galvanizes the skills and expertise of faculty and students from over 12 schools and programs in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and is agile enough to shift and respond to future public health and medical emergencies. Since March 2020, over 30 projects have been developed and implemented supporting needs identified by the health system, providers, faculty, staff, and students as well as the larger community. The development of the CSSC also provided critical virtual educational opportunities in the form of service learning for students who were unable to have any in-person instruction. The CSSC model has been shared nationally and nine additional chapters have started at academic institutions across the country.