A model of occupational stress to assess impact of COVID-19 on critical care and redeployed nurses: a mixed-methods study.

Janice Rattray, Jordan Miller, Beth Pollard, Louise McCallum, Alastair Hull, Pam Ramsay, Lisa Salisbury, Teresa Scott, Stephen Cole, Diane Dixon
{"title":"A model of occupational stress to assess impact of COVID-19 on critical care and redeployed nurses: a mixed-methods study.","authors":"Janice Rattray, Jordan Miller, Beth Pollard, Louise McCallum, Alastair Hull, Pam Ramsay, Lisa Salisbury, Teresa Scott, Stephen Cole, Diane Dixon","doi":"10.3310/PWRT8714","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To use the job demands-resources model of occupational stress to quantify and explain the impact of working in critical care during the COVID-19 pandemic on nurses and their employing organisation.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Two-phase mixed methods: a cross-sectional survey (January 2021-March 2022), with comparator baseline data from April to October 2018 (critical care nurses only), and semistructured interviews.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Critical care nurses (<i>n</i> = 461) and nurses redeployed to critical care (<i>n</i> = 200) who worked in the United Kingdom National Health Service (primarily Scotland) between January 2021 and March 2022. The 2018 survey was completed by 557 critical care nurses (Scotland only). Survey response rate in Scotland was 32% but could not be determined outside Scotland. Forty-four nurses were interviewed (critical care = 28, redeployed = 16).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A survey measured job demands, job resources, health impairment, work engagement and organisational outcomes. Data were compared to 2018 data. Regression analyses identified predictors of health impairment, work engagement and organisational outcomes. Semistructured interviews were conducted remotely, audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed deductively using framework analysis.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Three-quarters of nurses reached threshold for psychological distress, approximately 50% reached threshold for burnout emotional exhaustion and a third clinically concerning post-traumatic stress symptoms. Compared to 2018, critical care nurses were at elevated risk of probable psychological distress, odds ratio 6.03 (95% CI 4.75 to 7.95); burnout emotional exhaustion, odds ratio 4.02 (3.07 to 5.26); burnout depersonalisation, odds ratio 3.18 (1.99 to 5.07); burnout accomplishment, odds ratio 1.53 (1.18 to 1.97). There were no differences between critical care and redeployed nurses on health impairment outcomes, suggesting elevated risk would apply to redeployed nurses. Job demands increased and resources decreased during the pandemic. Higher job demands predicted greater psychological distress. Job resources reduced the negative impact of job demands on psychological distress, but this moderating effect was not observed at higher levels of demand. All organisational outcomes worsened. Lack of resources predicted worse organisational outcomes. In interviews, staff described the pace and amount, complexity, physical and emotional effort of their work as the most difficult job demands. The sustained high-demand environment impacted physical and psychological well-being, with most interviewees experiencing emotional and physical exhaustion, burnout, and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Camaraderie and support from colleagues and supervisors were core job resources. The combination of sustained demands and their impact on staff well-being incurred negative organisational consequences, with increasing numbers considering leaving their specialty or nursing altogether. Dissemination events with a range of stakeholders, including study participants, identified staffing issues and lack of learning and development opportunities as problematic. Critical care nurses are concerned about the future delivery of high-quality critical care services. Positive aspects were identified, for example, reduced bureaucratic systems, increased local autonomy and decision-making, recognition of the critical care nurse skill set.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The National Health Service needs to recognise the impact of COVID-19 on this staff group, prioritise the welfare of critical care nurses, implement workplace change/planning, and support them to recover from the pandemic. The National Health Service is struggling to retain critical care nurses and, unless staff welfare is improved, quality of care and patient safety will likely decline.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) <i>Health and Social Care Delivery Research</i> as award number NIHR132068.</p>","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":" ","pages":"1-32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and social care delivery research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/PWRT8714","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To use the job demands-resources model of occupational stress to quantify and explain the impact of working in critical care during the COVID-19 pandemic on nurses and their employing organisation.

Design: Two-phase mixed methods: a cross-sectional survey (January 2021-March 2022), with comparator baseline data from April to October 2018 (critical care nurses only), and semistructured interviews.

Participants: Critical care nurses (n = 461) and nurses redeployed to critical care (n = 200) who worked in the United Kingdom National Health Service (primarily Scotland) between January 2021 and March 2022. The 2018 survey was completed by 557 critical care nurses (Scotland only). Survey response rate in Scotland was 32% but could not be determined outside Scotland. Forty-four nurses were interviewed (critical care = 28, redeployed = 16).

Methods: A survey measured job demands, job resources, health impairment, work engagement and organisational outcomes. Data were compared to 2018 data. Regression analyses identified predictors of health impairment, work engagement and organisational outcomes. Semistructured interviews were conducted remotely, audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed deductively using framework analysis.

Findings: Three-quarters of nurses reached threshold for psychological distress, approximately 50% reached threshold for burnout emotional exhaustion and a third clinically concerning post-traumatic stress symptoms. Compared to 2018, critical care nurses were at elevated risk of probable psychological distress, odds ratio 6.03 (95% CI 4.75 to 7.95); burnout emotional exhaustion, odds ratio 4.02 (3.07 to 5.26); burnout depersonalisation, odds ratio 3.18 (1.99 to 5.07); burnout accomplishment, odds ratio 1.53 (1.18 to 1.97). There were no differences between critical care and redeployed nurses on health impairment outcomes, suggesting elevated risk would apply to redeployed nurses. Job demands increased and resources decreased during the pandemic. Higher job demands predicted greater psychological distress. Job resources reduced the negative impact of job demands on psychological distress, but this moderating effect was not observed at higher levels of demand. All organisational outcomes worsened. Lack of resources predicted worse organisational outcomes. In interviews, staff described the pace and amount, complexity, physical and emotional effort of their work as the most difficult job demands. The sustained high-demand environment impacted physical and psychological well-being, with most interviewees experiencing emotional and physical exhaustion, burnout, and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Camaraderie and support from colleagues and supervisors were core job resources. The combination of sustained demands and their impact on staff well-being incurred negative organisational consequences, with increasing numbers considering leaving their specialty or nursing altogether. Dissemination events with a range of stakeholders, including study participants, identified staffing issues and lack of learning and development opportunities as problematic. Critical care nurses are concerned about the future delivery of high-quality critical care services. Positive aspects were identified, for example, reduced bureaucratic systems, increased local autonomy and decision-making, recognition of the critical care nurse skill set.

Conclusions: The National Health Service needs to recognise the impact of COVID-19 on this staff group, prioritise the welfare of critical care nurses, implement workplace change/planning, and support them to recover from the pandemic. The National Health Service is struggling to retain critical care nurses and, unless staff welfare is improved, quality of care and patient safety will likely decline.

Funding: This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research as award number NIHR132068.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A model of occupational stress to assess impact of COVID-19 on critical care and redeployed nurses: a mixed-methods study. Exploratory study from an end-of-life research partnership network to improve access for ethnically diverse communities in one region. Early mental health intervention and supported self-care for LGBTQ+ young people in the UK: a mixed-methods study. Interpersonal counselling for adolescent depression delivered by youth mental health workers without core professional training: the ICALM feasibility RCT. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of first contact physiotherapy for musculoskeletal disorders in primary care: the FRONTIER, mixed method realist evaluation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1