COVID-19 and the cancer care workforce: From doctors to ancillary staff

Cancer Care Team Functioning during COVID-19: A Narrative Literature Review and Synthesis

Amid pandemics, health care teams face unprecedented challenges, requiring significant efforts to sustain optimal functioning and navigate rapid practice changes. It is therefore crucial to identify factors affecting team functioning in these contexts. The present narrative review more specifically summarizes the literature on key elements of cancer teams' functioning during COVID-19. The search strategy involved four main databases (i.e., Medline OVID, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL), as well as Google Scholar, from January 2000 to September 2022. Twenty-three publications were found to be relevant. Each was read thoroughly, and its content summarized. Across publications, three key themes emerged: (1) swiftly adopting virtual technology for communication and interprofessional collaboration, (2) promoting team resilience, and (3) encouraging self-care and optimizing team support. Our findings underscore key team functioning elements to address in future pandemics. More research is needed to document the perspectives of broader-based team members (such as patients and lay carers) to inform more comprehensive evidence-based team functioning guidelines.

Burnout, coping and resilience of the cancer care workforce during the SARS-CoV-2: A multinational cross-sectional study

PURPOSE

Over the past year, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has significantly increased the demand placed on health care professionals around the world. The already complex cancer care has been complicated further by the restructuring of services (e.g., working processes, treatment allocation). This study was designed to explore the level of burnout, coping and resilience of the cancer care workforce during SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

Cross-sectional, multinational study undertaken between March-May 2021. In total 271 healthcare professionals were recruited in the study. These were specialized and/or working in the oncology sector from around the globe. Data were collected with an online survey with the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, Brief-COPE (Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced) Scale and The Maslach 's Burnout Inventory.

RESULTS

The majority of the participants were cancer nurses followed by oncologists. The mean overall Burnout score was 64.86 (SD 17.15), the overall COPE score was 31.72 (SD 12.39) and the overall Resilience score was 69.48 (SD 12.4). Positive correlations were found between the COPE dimensions and the burnout overall score (0.316, 0.388, 0.398). The burnout overall score was negatively correlated with the resilience score (p -0.126).

CONCLUSION

The findings showed significand levels of burnout, diminished coping abilities and reduced resilience among cancer care professionals. This study emphasizes the need for a timely and appropriate preparation of the healthcare systems to better support cancer care professionals in the event of a new SARS-CoV-2 healthcare emergency.

From doctors to ancillary staff: Regional and metropolitan cancer workforce perceptions and distress resulting from COVID-19 pandemic adaptations

INTRODUCTION

The declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in necessary and rapid changes to health service delivery. In the Australian context, it has been broadly identified that these impacts have been felt by health care workers (HCW) providing care. We aimed to capture oncology HCW perceptions of support, stress, personal ability to meet needs and institutional preparedness across longitudinal periods of COVID-19 response in the early stages of the pandemic.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

An electronic survey was developed to measure the weekly impacts and distress experienced by HCW during the early phases of the pandemic. Hospital email communications relating to pandemic directives were noted. HCW included nursing, medical, ancillary staff and allied health team members at 2 study sites, 1 metropolitan and 1 regional center in Queensland, Australia. Descriptive statistics were applied to quantitative data, and a framework analysis for qualitative data. Key themes were synthesized using mixed methods approaches.

RESULTS

A total of 176 HCW consented to participate. Four key themes were identified. Key theme 1 was strategies for protection, and included the subthemes of self-isolation, using personal protective equipment (PPE), protecting patients and families and each other. Key theme 2 was navigating rules and keeping up, and included the subthemes of compliance, exceptions, conflict and complex decision fatigue. Key theme 3 was tempered optimism, with subthemes including this is grief, pride in one's place and strategies for coping. Key theme 4 was framing the new normal, with subthemes including using technology, second wave and uncertainty.

CONCLUSION

Staff groups reported the emotional impacts of rapid change across clinical areas and centers. Distress corresponded to rapid change amid uncertainty, rather than reported infection rates. These findings give insight into the experiences of patient facing oncology HCW during periods of uncertainty, potentially informing policy in the future.

The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on genitourinary and prostate cancer care and clinical trials: A qualitative exploration of the Australian and New Zealand experience

PURPOSE

This qualitative study aimed to understand the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic from March to November 2020 on healthcare delivery and clinical trials for genitourinary (GU) cancers in Australia.

METHODS

Annually a pre-conference workshop is hosted by the Australian New Zealand Urogenital and Prostate Cancer Trials Group for supportive care health professionals. In November 2020, those that selected to attend were invited to participate in a focus group. Workshop and focus group discussions were recorded and transcripts were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

Seventy-two individuals involved in GU cancer care and clinical trials took part. Participants described negative changes to GU cancer care and clinical trials from the pandemic due to reduced clinical services and increased wait times. Trial recruitment was paused temporarily during lockdowns, and standard treatment protocols were used to limit hospital visits. Trial process changes included electronic capture of informed consent, home delivery of oral medications, and delegations of assessments. These changes increased administrative activity for clinical trial teams and Human Research Ethics Committees. A transition to telehealth enabled continuity of service delivery and trials but reduced the opportunity for face-to-face patient consultations with increasing concern about the failure to detect supportive care needs.

CONCLUSION

The pandemic has prompted a critical review of service delivery and clinical trials for people with GU cancers.

Redeployment of Health Care Workers in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study of Health System Leaders' Strategies

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine the strategies used and critical considerations among an international sample of hospital leaders when mobilizing human resources in response to the clinical demands associated with the COVID-19 pandemic surge.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional, qualitative research study designed to investigate strategies used by health system leaders from around the world when mobilizing human resources in response to the global COVD-19 pandemic. Prospective interviewees were identified through nonprobability and purposive sampling methods from May to July 2020. The primary outcomes were the critical considerations, as perceived by health system leaders, when redeploying health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic determined through thematic analysis of transcribed notes. Redeployment was defined as reassigning personnel to a different location or retraining personnel for a different task.

RESULTS

Nine hospital leaders from 9 hospitals in 8 health systems located in 5 countries (United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea) were interviewed. Six hospitals in 5 health systems experienced a surge of critically ill patients with COVID-19, and the remaining 3 hospitals anticipated, but did not experience, a similar surge. Seven of 8 hospitals redeployed their health care workforce, and 1 had a redeployment plan in place but did not need to use it. Thematic analysis of the interview notes identified 3 themes representing effective practices and lessons learned when preparing and executing workforce redeployment: process, leadership, and communication. Critical considerations within each theme were identified. Because of the various expertise of redeployed personnel, retraining had to be customized and a decentralized flexible strategy was implemented. There were 3 concerns regarding redeployed personnel. These included the fear of becoming infected, the concern over their skills and patient safety, and concerns regarding professional loss (such as loss of education opportunities in their chosen profession). Transparency via multiple different types of communications is important to prevent the development of doubt and rumors.

CONCLUSIONS

Redeployment strategies should critically consider the process of redeploying and supporting the health care workforce, decentralized leadership that encourages and supports local implementation of system-wide plans, and communication that is transparent, regular, consistent, and informed by data.

Semiqualitative research protocol to explore cancer care workforce perceptions of the health system response to COVID-19 preparations in Southeast Queensland, Australia

INTRODUCTION

Sars-CoV-2 is a novel coronavirus responsible for COVID-19 officially declared pandemic in March 2020. Health systems worldwide responded with swift changes to increase workflow capacity while protecting the vulnerable, including those with cancer. This led to unprecedented and rapid restructuring of health service provision. Published data from the 2003 SARS pandemic focuses on medical and nursing staff, overlooking other departmental employees such as administration officers or food service workers. Our protocol aims to document directives and adjustments communicated to staff in two cancer care departments and correlate this with measures of distress and perceived preparedness across the spectrum of all staff involved in cancer care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We use a semiqualitative approach comprising weekly diarising of events and simultaneous staff surveys. Principal investigators will document changes at a metropolitan quaternary cancer centre and a regional cancer centre. Communications, directives and changes will be diarised in real time in four executional domains. Simultaneously, prospective voluntary self-administered online surveys will be conducted at regular intervals by staff. The survey assesses the perceived institutional preparedness and personal well-being, with a combination of Likert scaled and open response questions. A semiquantitative self-assessment of distress adapted from National Comprehensive Cancer Network distress thermometer is incorporated. Additionally, open-text personal reflections on themes including difficult decisions will be invited. Survey participants will be drawn from various work areas of the cancer care departments: administrative staff, health professionals, for example, allied health, ancillary workers, nursing and medical.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been reviewed and approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee (LNR/2020/QRBW/62982). Published literature on domains of distress neglects categories of healthcare worker who form an essential part of the care delivery team. Our study hopes to gather insights about psychosocial impact and adjustment which could direct responses in future emergencies.

The Oncology Nursing Society Rapid Review and Research Priorities for Cancer Care in the Context of COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

To identify research priorities addressing COVID-19 that build on the 2019-2022 Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) Research Agenda, in alignment with ONS's mission to promote excellence in oncology nursing and quality cancer care.

METHODS & VARIABLES

Priority areas were identified using a multistep approach combining rapid review of the literature; consultation with experts/stakeholders; and review of priorities from other funding agencies, public health, and cancer-focused organizations.

RESULTS

The rapid research response team identified five priority areas for research related to COVID-19.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Oncology nurses are well positioned to address the research priorities and cross-cutting themes identified through this review. The use of innovative methodologic approaches and attention to disparities are necessary to advance cancer care related to COVID-19.