Safe Care and Medication Intake Provided by Caregivers at Home: Reality Care Study Protocol.

JUSTIFICATION: Providing care to patients with several conditions and simultaneously taking several medications at home is inexorably growing in developed countries. This trend increases the chances of home caregivers experiencing diverse errors related with medication or care. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of four different educational solutions compared to the natural intervention (absence of intervention) to provide a safer care at home by caregivers. METHOD: Prospective, parallel, and mixed research study with two phases. Candidates: Home-based caregivers caring a person with multiple comorbid conditions or polymedication who falls into one of the three profiles of patients defined for the study (oncology, cardiovascular, or pluripathological patients). First phase: Experts first answered an online survey, and then joined together to discuss the design and plan the content of educational solutions directed to caregivers including the identification of medication and home care errors, their causes, consequences, and risk factors. Second phase: The true experiment was performed using an inter- and intrasubject single-factor experimental design (five groups: four experimental groups against the natural intervention (control), with pre- and post-intervention and follow-up measures) with a simple random assignment, to determine the most effective educational solution (n = 350 participants). The participants will be trained on the educational solutions through 360 V, VR, web-based information, or psychoeducation. A group of professionals called the "Gold Standard" will be used to set a performance threshold for the caring or medication activities. The study will be carried out in primary care centers, hospitals, and caregivers' associations in the Valencian Community, Andalusia, Madrid, and Murcia. EXPECTED RESULTS: We expect to identify critical elements of risk management at home for caregivers and to find the most effective and optimal educational solution to reduce errors at home, increasing caregivers' motivation and self-efficacy whilst the impact of gender bias in this activity is reduced. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial NCT05885334.

Contributing factors for acute stress in healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, and Ecuador.

This study analyzed the frequency and intensity of acute stress among health professionals caring for COVID-19 patients in four Latin American Spanish-speaking countries during the outbreak. A cross-sectional study involved a non-probability sample of healthcare professionals in four Latin American countries. Participants from each country were invited using a platform and mobile application designed for this study. Hospital and primary care workers from different services caring for COVID-19 patients were included. The EASE Scale (SARS-CoV-2 Emotional Overload Scale, in Spanish named Escala Auto-aplicada de Sobrecarga Emocional) was a previously validated measure of acute stress. EASE scores were described overall by age, sex, work area, and experience of being ill with COVID-19. Using the Mann-Whitney U test, the EASE scores were compared according to the most critical moments of the pandemic. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to investigate associations between these factors and the outcome 'acute stress'. Finally, the Kruskal-Wallis was used to compare EASE scores and the experience of being ill. A total of 1372 professionals responded to all the items in the EASE scale: 375 (27.3%) Argentines, 365 (26.6%) Colombians, 345 (25.1%) Chileans, 209 (15.2%) Ecuadorians, and 78 (5.7%) from other countries. 27% of providers suffered middle-higher acute stress due to the outbreak. Worse results were observed in moments of peak incidence of cases (14.3 ± 5.3 vs. 6.9 ± 1.7, p < 0.05). Higher scores were found in professionals in COVID-19 critical care (13 ± 1.2) than those in non-COVID-19 areas (10.7 ± 1.9) (p = 0.03). Distress was higher among professionals who were COVID-19 patients (11.7 ± 1) or had doubts about their potential infection (12 ± 1.2) compared to those not infected (9.5 ± 0.7) (p = 0.001). Around one-third of the professionals experienced acute stress, increasing in intensity as the incidence of COVID-19 increased and as they became infected or in doubt whether they were infected. EASE scale could be a valuable asset for monitoring acute stress levels among health professionals in Latin America.ClinicalTrials: NCT04486404.

Addressing Acute Stress among Professionals Caring for COVID-19 Patients: Lessons Learned during the First Outbreak in Spain (March-April 2020).

Objectives: To describe lessons learned during the first COVID-19 outbreak in developing urgent interventions to strengthen healthcare workers' capacity to cope with acute stress caused by health care pressure, concern about becoming infected, despair of witnessing patients' suffering, and critical decision-making requirements of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic during the first outbreak in Spain. Methods: A task force integrated by healthcare professionals and academics was activated following the first observations of acute stress reactions starting to compromise the professionals' capacity for caring COVID-19 patients. Literature review and qualitative approach (consensus techniques) were applied. The target population included health professionals in primary care, hospitals, emergencies, and nursing homes. Interventions designed for addressing acute stress were agreed and disseminated. Findings: There are similarities in stressors to previous outbreaks, and the solutions devised then may work now. A set of issues, interventions to cope with, and their levels of evidence were defined. Issues and interventions were classified as: adequate communication initiative to strengthen work morale (avoiding information blackouts, uniformity of criteria, access to updated information, mentoring new professionals); resilience and recovery from physical and mental fatigue (briefings, protecting the family, regulated recovery time during the day, psychological first aid, humanizing care); reinforce leadership of intermediate commands (informative leadership, transparency, realism, and positive messages, the current state of emergency has not allowed for an empirical analysis of the effectiveness of proposed interventions. Sharing information to gauge expectations, listening to what professionals need, feeling protected from threats, organizational flexibility, encouraging teamwork, and leadership that promotes psychological safety have led to more positive responses. Attention to the needs of individuals must be combined with caring for the teams responsible for patient care. Conclusions: Although the COVID-19 pandemic has a more devastating effect than other recent outbreaks, there are common stressors and lessons learned in all of them that we must draw on to increase our capacity to respond to future healthcare crises.