NHS CHECK: protocol for a cohort study investigating the psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers

Ethnic inequalities among NHS staff in England: workplace experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to determine how workplace experiences of National Health Service (NHS) staff varied by ethnicity during the COVID-19 pandemic and how these experiences are associated with mental and physical health at the time of the study.

METHODS

An online Inequalities Survey was conducted by the Tackling Inequalities and Discrimination Experiences in Health Services study in collaboration with NHS CHECK. This Inequalities Survey collected measures relating to workplace experiences (such as personal protective equipment (PPE), risk assessments, redeployments and discrimination) as well as mental health (Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7 (GAD-7)), and physical health (PHQ-15) from NHS staff working in the 18 trusts participating with the NHS CHECK study between February and October 2021 (N=4622).

RESULTS

Regression analysis of this cross-sectional data revealed that staff from black and mixed/other ethnic groups had greater odds of experiencing workplace harassment (adjusted OR (AOR) 2.43 (95% CI 1.56 to 3.78) and 2.38 (95% CI 1.12 to 5.07), respectively) and discrimination (AOR 4.36 (95% CI 2.73 to 6.96) and 3.94 (95% CI 1.67 to 9.33), respectively) compared with white British staff. Staff from black ethnic groups also had greater odds than white British staff of reporting PPE unavailability (AOR 2.16 (95% CI 1.16 to 4.00)). Such workplace experiences were associated with negative physical and mental health outcomes, though this association varied by ethnicity. Conversely, understanding employment rights around redeployment, being informed about and having the ability to inform redeployment decisions were associated with lower odds of poor physical and mental health.

CONCLUSIONS

Structural changes to the way staff from ethnically minoritised groups are supported, and how their complaints are addressed by leaders within the NHS are urgently required.

Moral injury and psychological wellbeing in UK healthcare staff

BACKGROUND

Potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs) can negatively impact mental health. The COVID-19 pandemic may have placed healthcare staff at risk of moral injury.

AIM

To examine the impact of PMIE on healthcare staff wellbeing.

METHODS

Twelve thousand nine hundred and sixty-five healthcare staff (clinical and non-clinical) were recruited from 18 NHS-England trusts into a survey of PMIE exposure and wellbeing.

RESULTS

PMIEs were significantly associated with adverse mental health symptoms across healthcare staff. Specific work factors were significantly associated with experiences of moral injury, including being redeployed, lack of PPE, and having a colleague die of COVID-19. Nurses who reported symptoms of mental disorders were more likely to report all forms of PMIEs than those without symptoms (AOR 2.7; 95% CI 2.2, 3.3). Doctors who reported symptoms were only more likely to report betrayal events, such as breach of trust by colleagues (AOR 2.7, 95% CI 1.5, 4.9).

CONCLUSION

A considerable proportion of NHS healthcare staff in both clinical and non-clinical roles report exposure to PMIEs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospective research is needed to identify the direction of causation between moral injury and mental disorder as well as continuing to monitor the longer term outcomes of exposure to PMIEs.

Suicidal thoughts and behaviour among healthcare workers in England during the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal study

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, concern has been raised about suicide risk among healthcare workers (HCWs). We investigated the incidence risk and prevalence of suicidal thoughts and behaviour (STB), and their relationship with occupational risk factors, among National Health Service HCWs in England between April 2020 and August 2021.

METHODS

In this longitudinal study, we analysed online survey data completed by 22,501 HCWs from 17 NHS Trusts at baseline (Time 1) and six months (Time 2). The primary outcome measures were suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and non-suicidal self-injury. We used logistic regression to investigate the relationship between these outcomes and demographic characteristics and occupational factors. Results were stratified by occupational role (clinical/non-clinical).

RESULTS

Time 1 and Time 2 surveys were completed by 12,514 and 7,160 HCWs, respectively. At baseline, 10.8% (95% CI = 10.1%, 11.6%) of participants reported having experienced suicidal thoughts in the previous two months, whilst 2.1% (95% CI = 1.8%, 2.5%) of participants reported having attempted suicide over the same period. Among HCWs who had not experienced suicidal thoughts at baseline (and who completed the Time 2 survey), 11.3% (95%CI = 10.4%, 12.3%) reported such thoughts six months later. Six months after baseline, 3.9% (95% CI = 3.4%, 4.4%) of HCWs reported attempting suicide for the first time. Exposure to potentially morally injurious events, lack of confidence about raising safety concerns and these concerns being addressed, feeling unsupported by managers, and providing a reduced standard of care were all associated with increased suicidal ideation among HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. At six months, among clinicians, a lack of confidence about safety concerns being addressed, independently predicted suicidal ideation.

CONCLUSION

Suicidal thoughts and behaviour among healthcare workers could be reduced by improving managerial support and enhancing the ability of staff to raise safety concerns.

The psychological impact on perioperative healthcare workers during Victoria's second COVID-19 wave: A prospective longitudinal thematic analysis

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound psychological impact on our frontline healthcare workers. Throughout the entire second COVID-19 wave at one major tertiary hospital in Melbourne Australia, longitudinal qualitative data between perioperative staff members, and analyses of intrapersonal changes were reported. Inductive analysis of three open-ended questions generated four major themes: Organisational Response to the Pandemic, Psychological Impact, Changes in Feelings of Support Over Time and Suggestions for Changes. Understanding the challenges, perception and suggestions from this longitudinal study allows us to provide a range of support services and interventions to minimise the long-term negative psychological impact and be better prepared should another similar situation arises again.

Multicentre, England-wide randomised controlled trial of the 'Foundations' smartphone application in improving mental health and well-being in a healthcare worker population

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers (HCWs) have faced considerable pressures during the COVID-19 pandemic. For some, this has resulted in mental health distress and disorder. Although interventions have sought to support HCWs, few have been evaluated.

AIMS

We aimed to determine the effectiveness of the 'Foundations' application (app) on general (non-psychotic) psychiatric morbidity.

METHOD

We conducted a multicentre randomised controlled trial of HCWs at 16 NHS trusts (trial registration number: EudraCT: 2021-001279-18). Participants were randomly assigned to the app or wait-list control group. Measures were assessed at baseline, after 4 and 8 weeks. The primary outcome was general psychiatric morbidity (using the General Health Questionnaire). Secondary outcomes included: well-being; presenteeism; anxiety; depression and insomnia. The primary analysis used mixed-effects multivariable regression, presented as adjusted mean differences (aMD).

RESULTS

Between 22 March and 3 June 2021, 1002 participants were randomised (500:502), and 894 (89.2%) followed-up. The sample was predominately women (754/894, 84.3%), with a mean age of 44⋅3 years (interquartile range (IQR) 34-53). Participants randomised to the app had a reduction in psychiatric morbidity symptoms (aMD = -1.39, 95% CI -2.05 to -0.74), improvement in well-being (aMD = 0⋅54, 95% CI 0⋅20 to 0⋅89) and reduction in insomnia (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0⋅36, 95% CI 0⋅21 to 0⋅60). No other significant findings were found, or adverse events reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The app had an effect in reducing psychiatric morbidity symptoms in a sample of HCWs. Given it is scalable with no adverse effects, the app may be used as part of an organisation's tiered staff support package. Further evidence is needed on long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder and common mental disorders in health-care workers in England during the COVID-19 pandemic: a two-phase cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Previous studies on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of health-care workers have relied on self-reported screening measures to estimate the point prevalence of common mental disorders. Screening measures, which are designed to be sensitive, have low positive predictive value and often overestimate prevalence. We aimed to estimate prevalence of common mental disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among health-care workers in England using diagnostic interviews.

METHODS

We did a two-phase, cross-sectional study comprising diagnostic interviews within a larger multisite longitudinal cohort of health-care workers (National Health Service [NHS] CHECK; n=23 462) during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the first phase, health-care workers across 18 NHS England Trusts were recruited. Baseline assessments were done using online surveys between April 24, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021. In the second phase, we selected a proportion of participants who had responded to the surveys and conducted diagnostic interviews to establish the prevalence of mental disorders. The recruitment period for the diagnostic interviews was between March 1, 2021 and Aug 27, 2021. Participants were screened with the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) and assessed with the Clinical Interview Schedule-Revised (CIS-R) for common mental disorders or were screened with the 6-item Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL-6) and assessed with the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) for PTSD.

FINDINGS

The screening sample contained 23 462 participants: 2079 participants were excluded due to missing values on the GHQ-12 and 11 147 participants due to missing values on the PCL-6. 243 individuals participated in diagnostic interviews for common mental disorders (CIS-R; mean age 42 years [range 21-70]; 185 [76%] women and 58 [24%] men) and 94 individuals participated in diagnostic interviews for PTSD (CAPS-5; mean age 44 years [23-62]; 79 [84%] women and 15 [16%] men). 202 (83%) of 243 individuals in the common mental disorders sample and 83 (88%) of 94 individuals in the PTSD sample were White. GHQ-12 screening caseness for common mental disorders was 52·8% (95% CI 51·7-53·8). Using CIS-R diagnostic interviews, the estimated population prevalence of generalised anxiety disorder was 14·3% (10·4-19·2), population prevalence of depression was 13·7% (10·1-18·3), and combined population prevalence of generalised anxiety disorder and depression was 21·5% (16·9-26·8). PCL-6 screening caseness for PTSD was 25·4% (24·3-26·5). Using CAPS-5 diagnostic interviews, the estimated population prevalence of PTSD was 7·9% (4·0-15·1).

INTERPRETATION

The prevalence estimates of common mental disorders and PTSD in health-care workers were considerably lower when assessed using diagnostic interviews compared with screening tools. 21·5% of health-care workers met the threshold for diagnosable mental disorders, and thus might benefit from clinical intervention.

FUNDING

UK Medical Research Council; UCL/Wellcome; Rosetrees Trust; NHS England and Improvement; Economic and Social Research Council; National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at the Maudsley and King's College London (KCL); NIHR Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response at KCL.

Capturing the experiences of UK healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A structural topic modelling analysis of 7,412 free-text survey responses

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers (HCWs) have provided vital services during the COVID-19 pandemic, but existing research consists of quantitative surveys (lacking in depth or context) or qualitative interviews (with limited generalisability). Structural Topic Modelling (STM) of large-scale free-text survey data offers a way of capturing the perspectives of a wide range of HCWs in their own words about their experiences of the pandemic.

METHODS

In an online survey distributed to all staff at 18 geographically dispersed NHS Trusts, we asked respondents, "Is there anything else you think we should know about your experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic?". We used STM on 7,412 responses to identify topics, and thematic analysis on the resultant topics and text excerpts.

RESULTS

We identified 33 topics, grouped into two domains, each containing four themes. Our findings emphasise: the deleterious effect of increased workloads, lack of PPE, inconsistent advice/guidance, and lack of autonomy; differing experiences of home working as negative/positive; and the benefits of supportive leadership and peers in ameliorating challenges. Themes varied by demographics and time: discussion of home working decreasing over time, while discussion of workplace challenges increased. Discussion of mental health was lowest between September-November 2020, between the first and second waves of COVID-19 in the UK.

DISCUSSION

Our findings represent the most salient experiences of HCWs through the pandemic. STM enabled statistical examination of how the qualitative themes raised differed according to participant characteristics. This relatively underutilised methodology in healthcare research can provide more nuanced, yet generalisable, evidence than that available via surveys or small interview studies, and should be used in future research.

Healthcare workers use of psychological support resources during COVID-19; a mixed methods approach utilising Pillar Integration Analysis

Objectives

We sought to examine healthcare workers (HCWs) utilisation of formal and informal psychological support resources in the workplace during the first and third waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ireland.

Methods

A convergent mixed methods approach was undertaken. Four hundred and thirty HCWs in the Mid West and South of Ireland responded to an online survey in terms of their use of psychological support resources during Wave 1 (April/May 2020) of COVID-19. Thirty-nine HCWs undertook in depth interviews at Wave 3 (January/February 2021), and a further quantitative survey was distributed and completed by 278 HCWs at this time. Quantitative data arising at Wave 1 and Wave 3, were synthesised with Qualitative data collected at Wave 3. A Pillar Integration Process (PIP) was utilised in the analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data.

Results

Five pillars were identified from the integration of results. These were: a) the primacy of peer support, b) the importance of psychologically informed management, c) a need to develop the organisational well-being ethos, d) support for all HCWs, and e) HCWs ideas for developing the well-being path. These pillars encapsulated a strong emphasis on collegial support, an emphasis on the need to support managers, a questioning of the current supports provided within the healthcare organisations and critical reflections on what HCWs viewed as most helpful for their future support needs.

Conclusions

HCWs who utilised supportive resources indicated ‘in house’ supports, primarily collegial resources, were the most frequently used and perceived as most helpful. While formal psychological supports were important, the mechanism by which such psychological support is made available, through utilising peer support structures and moving towards psychologically informed supervisors and workplaces is likely to be more sustainable and perceived more positively by HCWs.

'It hurts your heart': frontline healthcare worker experiences of moral injury during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background: Moral injury is defined as the strong emotional and cognitive reactions following events which clash with someone's moral code, values or expectations. During the COVID-19 pandemic, increased exposure to Potentially Morally Injurious Events (PMIEs) has placed healthcare workers (HCWs) at risk of moral injury. Yet little is known about the lived experience of cumulative PMIE exposure and how NHS staff respond to this. Objective: We sought to rectify this knowledge gap by qualitatively exploring the lived experiences and perspectives of clinical frontline NHS staff who responded to COVID-19. Methods: We recruited a diverse sample of 30 clinical frontline HCWs from the NHS CHECK study cohort, for single time point qualitative interviews. All participants endorsed at least one item on the 9-item Moral Injury Events Scale (MIES) [Nash et al., 2013. Psychometric evaluation of the moral injury events scale. Military Medicine, 178(6), 646-652] at six month follow up. Interviews followed a semi-structured guide and were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: HCWs described being routinely exposed to ethical conflicts, created by exacerbations of pre-existing systemic issues including inadequate staffing and resourcing. We found that HCWs experienced a range of mental health symptoms primarily related to perceptions of institutional betrayal as well as feeling unable to fulfil their duty of care towards patients. Conclusion: These results suggest that a multi-facetted organisational strategy is warranted to prepare for PMIE exposure, promote opportunities for resolution of symptoms associated with moral injury and prevent organisational disengagement. HIGHLIGHTS Clinical frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) have been exposed to an accumulation of potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs) throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, including feeling betrayed by both government and NHS leaders as well as feeling unable to provide duty of care to patients.HCWs described the significant adverse impact of this exposure on their mental health, including increased anxiety and depression symptoms and sleep disturbance.Most HCWs interviewed believed that organisational change within the NHS was necessary to prevent excess PMIE exposure and promote resolution of moral distress.