Background Evidence from disease epidemics shows that healthcare workers are at risk of developing short- and long-term mental health problems. The World Health Organization (WHO) has warned about the potential negative impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the mental well-being of health and social care professionals. Symptoms of mental health problems commonly include depression, anxiety, stress, and additional cognitive and social problems; these can impact on function in the workplace. The mental health and resilience (ability to cope with the negative effects of stress) of frontline health and social care professionals ('frontline workers' in this review) could be supported during disease epidemics by workplace interventions, interventions to support basic daily needs, psychological support interventions, pharmacological interventions, or a combination of any or all of these. Objectives Objective 1: to assess the effects of interventions aimed at supporting the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic. Objective 2: to identify barriers and facilitators that may impact on the implementation of interventions aimed at supporting the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic. Search methods On 28 May 2020 we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus databases and WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing. We also searched ongoing trials registers and Google Scholar. We ran all searches from the year 2002 onwards, with no language restrictions. Selection criteria We included studies in which participants were health and social care professionals working at the front line during infectious disease outbreaks, categorised as epidemics or pandemics by WHO, from 2002 onwards. For objective 1 we included quantitative evidence from randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies, which investigated the effect of any intervention to support mental health or resilience, compared to no intervention, standard care, placebo or attention control intervention, or other active interventions. For objective 2 we included qualitative evidence from studies that described barriers and facilitators to the implementation of interventions. Outcomes critical to this review were general mental health and resilience. Additional outcomes included psychological symptoms of anxiety, depression or stress; burnout; other mental health disorders; workplace staffing; and adverse events arising from interventions. Data collection and analysis Pairs of review authors independently applied selection criteria to abstracts and full papers, with disagreements resolved through discussion. One review author systematically extracted data, cross-checked by a second review author. For objective 1, we assessed risk of bias of studies of effectiveness using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. For objective 2, we assessed methodological limitations using either the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) qualitative study tool, for qualitative studies, or WEIRD (Ways of Evaluating Important and Relevant Data) tool, for descriptive studies. We planned meta-analyses of pairwise comparisons for outcomes if direct evidence were available. Two review authors extracted evidence relating to barriers and facilitators to implementation, organised these around the domains of the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research, and used the GRADE-CERQual approach to assess confidence in each finding. We planned to produce an overarching synthesis, bringing quantitative and qualitative findings together. Main results We included 16 studies that reported implementation of an intervention aimed at supporting the resilience or mental health of frontline workers during disease outbreaks (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS): 2; Ebola: 9; Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS): 1; COVID-19: 4). Interventions studied included workplace interventions, such as training, structure and communication (6 studies); psychological support interventions, such as counselling and psychology services (8 studies); and multifaceted interventions (2 studies). Objective 1: a mixed-methods study that incorporated a cluster-randomised trial, investigating the effect of a work-based intervention, provided very low-certainty evidence about the effect of training frontline healthcare workers to deliver psychological first aid on a measure of burnout. Objective 2: we included all 16 studies in our qualitative evidence synthesis; we classified seven as qualitative and nine as descriptive studies. We identified 17 key findings from multiple barriers and facilitators reported in studies. We did not have high confidence in any of the findings; we had moderate confidence in six findings and low to very low confidence in 11 findings. We are moderately confident that the following two factors were barriers to intervention implementation: frontline workers, or the organisations in which they worked, not being fully aware of what they needed to support their mental well-being; and a lack of equipment, staff time or skills needed for an intervention. We are moderately confident that the following three factors were facilitators of intervention implementation: interventions that could be adapted for local needs; having effective communication, both formally and socially; and having positive, safe and supportive learning environments for frontline workers. We are moderately confident that the knowledge or beliefs, or both, that people have about an intervention can act as either barriers or facilitators to implementation of the intervention. Authors' conclusions There is a lack of both quantitative and qualitative evidence from studies carried out during or after disease epidemics and pandemics that can inform the selection of interventions that are beneficial to the resilience and mental health of frontline workers. Alternative sources of evidence (e.g. from other healthcare crises, and general evidence about interventions that support mental well-being) could therefore be used to inform decision making. When selecting interventions aimed at supporting frontline workers' mental health, organisational, social, personal, and psychological factors may all be important. Research to determine the effectiveness of interventions is a high priority. The COVID-19 pandemic provides unique opportunities for robust evaluation of interventions. Future studies must be developed with appropriately rigorous planning, including development, peer review and transparent reporting of research protocols, following guidance and standards for best practice, and with appropriate length of follow-up. Factors that may act as barriers and facilitators to implementation of interventions should be considered during the planning of future research and when selecting interventions to deliver within local settings.

/pdf/interventions-to-support-the-resilience-and-mental-health-of-334vnzcq9s.pdf

Interventions to support the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic: a mixed methods systematic review

Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on supply and use of blood for transfusion.

Objectives Willingness to participate in disasters is usually overlooked and not addressed in disaster preparedness training courses to ensure health service coverage. This will lead to issues during the disaster’s response. This study, therefore, aims to assess healthcare workers willingness to participate in biological and natural disasters, and to identify its associated factors. Design This is a cross-sectional study using a self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed to 1093 healthcare workers. The data were analysed using multiple logistic regression with significance level p Setting In three public hospitals that provide tertiary-level healthcare in Sana’a City, Yemen. Participants There were 692 nurses and doctors (response rate 63.3%) completed the questionnaires. Results Almost half of the participants 55.1% were nurses and 44.9% were doctors. The study found that self-efficacy was associated with willingness to participate in disaster response for any type of disasters (OR 1.319, 95% CI 1.197 to 1.453), natural disasters (OR 1.143, 95% CI 1.069 to 1.221) and influenza pandemic (OR 1.114, 95% CI 1.050 to 1.182). The results further show that willingness is associated with healthcare workers being young, male and having higher educational qualifications. Conclusion Self-efficacy has been found to be an important factor associated with willingness. Improving self-efficacy through training in disaster preparedness may increase willingness of healthcare workers to participate in a disaster.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/9/10/e030547.full.pdf

Factors associated with healthcare workers willingness to participate in disasters: a cross-sectional study in Sana'a, Yemen.

The preparedness of a hospital for mass-casualty incident and disaster response includes activities, programs and systems developed and implemented before the event. These measures are designed to provide the necessary medical care to victims of disasters, and to minimize the negative impact of individual events on medical services. Up until now, there has been no systematic survey in Poland concerning the readiness of hospitals, as well as medical personnel, to deal with mass-casualty incidents. Consequently, little is known about the knowledge, skills, and professional competences of healthcare workers. The objective of this pilot study was to start an exploration and to collect data on the competences of healthcare workers, in addition to assessing the preparedness of hospitals for mass-casualty incidents. Utilizing an anonymous survey of a random sample, 134 healthcare providers were asked to respond to questions about the competencies they needed, and hospital preparedness during disaster response. It turned out that the test subjects evaluate their own preparedness for mass-casualty incidents and disasters better than the preparedness of their current place of work. The pilot study demonstrated that a properly designed questionnaire can be used to assess the relationship between hospital and staff preparedness and disaster response efficiency. Evaluation of the preparedness and effectiveness of disaster response is a means of finding and removing possible gaps and weaknesses in the functioning and effective management of a hospital during mass-casualty incidents.

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/12/4931/pdf

Disaster Preparedness and Professional Competence Among Healthcare Providers: Pilot Study Results

Background: Managing mass casualty or disaster incidents is challenging to any person or organisation. Therefore, this paper identifies and describes common challenges to managing such situations, using case and lessons learned reports. It focuses on sudden onset, man-made or technologically caused mass casualty or disaster situations. Methods: A management review was conducted based on a structured search in the PubMed and Web of Science databases. Results: The review included 20 case—and lessons learned reports covering natural disasters, man-made events, and accidents across Europe, the United States of Amerika (USA), Asia and the Middle East. Five common challenges were identified: (1) to identify the situation and deal with uncertainty, (2) to balance the mismatch between the contingency plan and the reality, (3) to establish a functional crisis organization, (4) to adapt the medical response to the actual and overall situation and (5) to ensure a resilient response. Conclusions: The challenges when managing mass casualty or disaster events involved were mainly related to the ability to manage uncertainty and surprising situations, using structured processes to respond. The ability to change mind set, organization and procedures, both from an organizational- and individual perspective, was essential. Non-medical factors and internal factors influenced the medical management. In order to respond in an effective, timely and resilient way, all these factors should be taken into consideration.

https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/9/3068/pdf

Five Challenges When Managing Mass Casualty or Disaster Situations: A Review Study

Introduction It is important that health professionals and support staff are prepared for disasters to safeguard themselves and the community during disasters. There has been a significantly heightened focus on disasters since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York (USA); however, despite this, it is evident that health professionals and support staff may not be adequately prepared for disasters. Report An integrative literature review was performed based on a keyword search of the major health databases for primary research evaluating preparedness of health professionals and support staff. The literature was quality appraised using a mixed-methods appraisal tool (MMAT), and a thematic analysis was completed to identify current knowledge and gaps. Discussion The main themes identified were: health professionals and support staff may not be fully prepared for disasters; the most effective content and methods for disaster preparedness is unknown; and the willingness of health professionals and support staff to attend work and perform during disasters needs further evaluation. Gaps were identified to guide further research and the creation of new knowledge to best prepare for disasters. These included the need for: high-quality research to evaluate the best content and methods of disaster preparedness; inclusion of the multi-disciplinary health care team as participants; preparation for internal disasters; the development of validated competencies for preparedness; validated tools for measurement; and the importance of performance in actual disasters to evaluate preparation. Conclusion The literature identified that all types of disaster preparedness activities lead to improvements in knowledge, skills, or attitude preparedness for disasters. Most studies focused on external disasters and the preparedness of medical, nursing, public health, or paramedic professionals. There needs to be a greater focus on the whole health care team, including allied health professionals and support staff, for both internal and external disasters. Evaluation during real disasters and the use of validated competencies and tools to deliver and evaluate disaster preparedness will enhance knowledge of best practice preparedness. However, of the 36 research articles included in this review, only five were rated at 100% using the MMAT. Due to methodological weakness of the research reviewed, the findings cannot be generalized, nor can the most effective method be determined. Gowing JR , Walker KN , Elmer SL , Cummings EA . Disaster Preparedness among Health Professionals and Support Staff: What is Effective? An Integrative Literature Review. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(3):321–328.

Disaster Preparedness among Health Professionals and Support Staff: What is Effective? An Integrative Literature Review.

and crises. Ongoing operation is dependent on the availability of manpower, infrastructure, medical equipment, information technology, and computerized systems. Advanced planning is required to ensure sustainability of services, even during significant disasters. Methods: An operational continuity plan was established, basing the sustainability efforts on international standards. Through adaptation of a process of Business Impact Analysis on the health care system, core vulnerabilities within the HMO were identified, priorities, and criticality of each service were defined as follows: HIGH: Recovery Time Objective (RTO) immediately or up to 24 hours; MEDIUM: RTO within a week; LOW: RTO within four weeks. The plan encompasses all critical elements and services, including computerized system, manpower, infrastructure, and vital equipment. Results: The operational continuity plan was evaluated and approved by the senior Executive Board of the HMO and has been adopted as a perennial work plan. A designated organizational structure was developed as responsible for the implementation and management of the recovery plan during a crisis. Once a year, training and exercise of the recovery plan is conducted, cross-cutting all critical services including: primary care, nursing, pharmacy, laboratory, radiology, home care for vulnerable populations, mental, and emergency dental health services. The aim is to achieve participation of at least 25% of the pre-defined population in the annual training program. Conclusion: Implementing preparedness for various disasters ensures recovery within the designated objectives, which were defined in the operational continuity plan. A significant budget needs to be allocated in order to facilitate an effective preparedness.

/pdf/what-are-the-most-effective-methods-of-disaster-preparation-5cv1uhs4fg.pdf

What are the Most Effective Methods of Disaster Preparation for Health Professionals and Support Staff? Perspectives from Staff at St Vincent’s Private Hospital, Sydney - Phase 1 of a Multi-site Study

Introduction: Understanding how to best prepare hospital staff for disasters or emergencies is critical, as there is increasing frequency and scope of these events. Considerations include: identifying key staff, their roles, strategies to support continuity of care, delivery mode of education, and resource allocation. Method: Participants experienced in disasters and major emergencies or preparation at three tertiary referral teaching hospitals were purposively selected during 2016 and 2019. An interpretive paradigm and case study design enabled the exploration of perspectives concerning effective and preferred methods for preparedness. Fifty-five allied health professionals, medical practitioners, and nurses participated in semi-structured interviews; and support staff participated in focus groups. Results: Key findings: 1. Recognition that allied health professionals and support staff are essential and must be included in disaster or major emergency preparation and plans. 2. Factors that increase the likelihood of staff deciding to be absent from work include: perception of danger, insufficient understanding of responsibilities, and hospital preparation is perceived inadequate. Staff understanding their role has a positive influence for attendance and coping during disasters. 3. Preferred and most effective method of disaster preparedness is practical learning, combined with other preparation methods. Online learning as the major mode was unpopular. 4. Challenges of inadequate resources limits managers’ ability to facilitate staff preparation and care delivery during disasters. Resources affect method, duration and multidisciplinary inclusion in disaster preparation. Conclusion: This research found disaster preparedness in hospitals is critical. Site and occupation specific differences need to be addressed. To mitigate impacts of disasters or major emergencies, preparation must include identification of required resources. Disaster preparedness and management must be inclusive of multidisciplinary staff, including allied health and support staff. Facilitation of role understanding to promote continuity of care during disasters or major emergencies is imperative to promote staff participation and effectiveness in response to disasters.

/pdf/hospital-workforce-education-and-training-for-emergency-1wtbb4md.pdf

Jeremy R Gowing

Papers

Disaster Preparedness among Health Professionals and Support Staff: What is Effective? An Integrative Literature Review.

What are the Most Effective Methods of Disaster Preparation for Health Professionals and Support Staff? Perspectives from Staff at St Vincent’s Private Hospital, Sydney - Phase 1 of a Multi-site Study

Hospital Workforce Education and Training for Emergency Management and Disaster Response in Complex Settings.