Post-traumatic stress symptoms in intensive care staff working in adult and paediatric settings

Using a Novel Gameplay Intervention to Target Intrusive Memories After Work-Related Trauma: Iterative Qualitative Analysis of Intensive Care Unit Staff Experiences

BACKGROUND

Many intensive care unit (ICU) staff experience intrusive memories following work-related traumatic events, which can lead to long-term mental health outcomes and impact work functioning. There is a need for interventions that target intrusive memories in this population; however, factors such as mental health stigma and difficulty in fitting interventions into busy schedules can pose barriers. The Brief Gameplay Intervention For National Health Service Intensive Care Unit Staff Affected By COVID-19 Trauma (GAINS) study tested a brief, digital imagery-competing task intervention (including computer gameplay) with the aim of reducing the recurrence of intrusive memories, which holds promise for overcoming some of these barriers.

OBJECTIVE

This substudy aims to explore barriers and facilitators to the uptake and practical use of the intervention by ICU staff, along with its acceptability, and iteratively explore the impact of intervention optimizations to further refine the intervention.

METHODS

The GAINS study is a randomized controlled trial comparing access to a brief digital imagery-competing task intervention for 4 weeks with usual care followed by delayed access to the intervention. The participants were ICU staff who worked during the COVID-19 pandemic and experienced intrusive memories. All participants were sent a questionnaire at 4 weeks to gather data about intervention acceptability. Nested within the randomized controlled trial, a subset of 16 participants was interviewed, and data were analyzed using thematic analysis drawing from a framework approach.

RESULTS

Both quantitative and qualitative data indicated high acceptability of the intervention. Intervention use data show that, on average, staff were able to target approximately 73% (3.64/4.88) of their intrusive memories and engaged with the Tetris component for the full 20 minutes per session. Overall, on the acceptability questionnaire, staff found the intervention easy to use, helpful, and highly acceptable. The interviews generated four themes: approach to the intervention, positives of the intervention, negatives of the intervention, and improvements and optimizations. Findings highlighted barriers that ICU staff experienced: stigma, feeling weak for seeking help, not wanting colleagues to know they were struggling, and skepticism. However, they provided suggestions on how barriers could be overcome and discussed the advantages of the intervention when compared with other treatments. Although participants described many positive aspects of the intervention, such as being easy to use, enjoyable, and leading to a reduction in the frequency or intensity of intrusive memories, they also raised practical issues for implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention has the potential to overcome stigma and reduce the frequency of intrusive memories after traumatic events among ICU staff. Further refinement is needed to improve the adoption and reach of this intervention. A limitation is that we could not interview the National Health Service staff who were unable or unwilling to take part in the trial.

Treating intrusive memories after trauma in healthcare workers: a Bayesian adaptive randomised trial developing an imagery-competing task intervention

Intensive care unit (ICU) staff continue to face recurrent work-related traumatic events throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Intrusive memories (IMs) of such traumatic events comprise sensory image-based memories. Harnessing research on preventing IMs with a novel behavioural intervention on the day of trauma, here we take critical next steps in developing this approach as a treatment for ICU staff who are already experiencing IMs days, weeks, or months post-trauma. To address the urgent need to develop novel mental health interventions, we used Bayesian statistical approaches to optimise a brief imagery-competing task intervention to reduce the number of IMs. We evaluated a digitised version of the intervention for remote, scalable delivery. We conducted a two-arm, parallel-group, randomised, adaptive Bayesian optimisation trial. Eligible participants worked clinically in a UK NHS ICU during the pandemic, experienced at least one work-related traumatic event, and at least three IMs in the week prior to recruitment. Participants were randomised to receive immediate or delayed (after 4 weeks) access to the intervention. Primary outcome was the number of IMs of trauma during week 4, controlling for baseline week. Analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis as a between-group comparison. Prior to final analysis, sequential Bayesian analyses were conducted (n = 20, 23, 29, 37, 41, 45) to inform early stopping of the trial prior to the planned maximum recruitment (n = 150). Final analysis (n = 75) showed strong evidence for a positive treatment effect (Bayes factor, BF = 1.25 × 106): the immediate arm reported fewer IMs (median = 1, IQR = 0-3) than the delayed arm (median = 10, IQR = 6-16.5). With further digital enhancements, the intervention (n = 28) also showed a positive treatment effect (BF = 7.31). Sequential Bayesian analyses provided evidence for reducing IMs of work-related trauma for healthcare workers. This methodology also allowed us to rule out negative effects early, reduced the planned maximum sample size, and allowed evaluation of enhancements. Trial Registration NCT04992390 ( www.clinicaltrials.gov ).

Mental health of staff working in intensive care during Covid-19

BACKGROUND

Staff working in intensive care units (ICUs) have faced significant challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic which have the potential to adversely affect their mental health.

AIMS

To identify the rates of probable mental health disorder in staff working in ICUs in nine English hospitals during June and July 2020.

METHODS

An anonymized brief web-based survey comprising standardized questionnaires examining depression, anxiety symptoms, symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), well-being and alcohol use was administered to staff.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and nine participants completed the surveys comprising 291 (41%) doctors, 344 (49%) nurses and 74 (10%) other healthcare staff. Over half (59%) reported good well-being; however, 45% met the threshold for probable clinical significance on at least one of the following measures: severe depression (6%), PTSD (40%), severe anxiety (11%) or problem drinking (7%). Thirteen per cent of respondents reported frequent thoughts of being better off dead, or of hurting themselves in the past 2 weeks. Within the sample used in this study, we found that doctors reported better mental health than nurses across a range of measures.

CONCLUSIONS

We found substantial rates of probable mental health disorders, and thoughts of self-harm, amongst ICU staff; these difficulties were especially prevalent in nurses. Whilst further work is needed to better understand the real level of clinical need amongst ICU staff, these results indicate the need for a national strategy to protect the mental health, and decrease the risk of functional impairment, of ICU staff whilst they carry out their essential work during COVID-19.