{"title":"Volume 21, Number 3","authors":"Journal of Emergency Management","doi":"10.5055/jem.0799","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.0799","url":null,"abstract":"<jats:p>-</jats:p>","PeriodicalId":38336,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Emergency Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44479013","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Community members experiencing mental health challenges often call 911. On one hand, mental health challenges among community members have grown exponentially during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. On the other hand, pressure on first responders has increased the complexity of emergency response due to the following reasons: responders not being trained in mental health, difficulties in properly identifying mental health calls, and discrepancies within police coding systems themselves. Consequently, mental health calls may not be addressed appropriately in a community. Understanding how first responders address 911 mental health crisis calls provides a foundation for improvement. A review of the literature illustrates the nature of responses from 911 to end disposition. The analysis highlights the challenges related to identifying mental health calls, matching appropriate responses, and targeting changes that could increase identification accuracy and speed. Based on the literature review, we are proposing a framework for training and research.
{"title":"First responders, mental health, dispatch coding, COVID-19: Crisis within a crisis","authors":"Talha Hashmi, Dominic Thomas, Monica Nandan","doi":"10.5055/jem.0664","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.0664","url":null,"abstract":"Community members experiencing mental health challenges often call 911. On one hand, mental health challenges among community members have grown exponentially during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. On the other hand, pressure on first responders has increased the complexity of emergency response due to the following reasons: responders not being trained in mental health, difficulties in properly identifying mental health calls, and discrepancies within police coding systems themselves. Consequently, mental health calls may not be addressed appropriately in a community. Understanding how first responders address 911 mental health crisis calls provides a foundation for improvement. A review of the literature illustrates the nature of responses from 911 to end disposition. The analysis highlights the challenges related to identifying mental health calls, matching appropriate responses, and targeting changes that could increase identification accuracy and speed. Based on the literature review, we are proposing a framework for training and research.","PeriodicalId":38336,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Emergency Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47636368","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Emergency managers may question the need for a focus on mental health much less three special issues! Mental health is important because it affects everyone... those in your community, those on your team, and you! You must address the mental health challenges as they directly affect the ability of your workforce to operate effectively and mental health issues will appear, weeks, months, and even years later at the most inopportune times.
{"title":"From the publisher","authors":"Richard DeVito, Jr.","doi":"10.5055/jem.0800","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.0800","url":null,"abstract":"Emergency managers may question the need for a focus on mental health much less three special issues! Mental health is important because it affects everyone... those in your community, those on your team, and you! You must address the mental health challenges as they directly affect the ability of your workforce to operate effectively and mental health issues will appear, weeks, months, and even years later at the most inopportune times.","PeriodicalId":38336,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Emergency Management","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135504103","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Kenneth A. Lachlan, Emily Hutter, Christine Gilbert, Patric R. Spence
A lengthy history of research in the crisis communication literature has documented sex differences in information needs and responses. Response Styles Theory is introduced as a potential explanatory mechanism for these findings, which may be attributable to differences in rumination tendency. A representative survey of over 5,000 United States residents explored information seeking and risk perceptions regarding the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Results support the argument that previously observed sex differences may be accounted for rumination, and rumination is predictive of specific (but not general) risk estimation. Rumination may also drive information seeking and subsequent depressive symptoms, especially among men. The findings are discussed in terms of their implications for risk and crisis communicators, and our consideration of gender norms and their impact on risk message processing.
{"title":"The impact of rumination on information seeking, depressive symptomology, and protective actions in response to COVID-19","authors":"Kenneth A. Lachlan, Emily Hutter, Christine Gilbert, Patric R. Spence","doi":"10.5055/jem.0695","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.0695","url":null,"abstract":"A lengthy history of research in the crisis communication literature has documented sex differences in information needs and responses. Response Styles Theory is introduced as a potential explanatory mechanism for these findings, which may be attributable to differences in rumination tendency. A representative survey of over 5,000 United States residents explored information seeking and risk perceptions regarding the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Results support the argument that previously observed sex differences may be accounted for rumination, and rumination is predictive of specific (but not general) risk estimation. Rumination may also drive information seeking and subsequent depressive symptoms, especially among men. The findings are discussed in terms of their implications for risk and crisis communicators, and our consideration of gender norms and their impact on risk message processing.","PeriodicalId":38336,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Emergency Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44079542","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Asad Khan, Anam Ali, Faisal Masood, Muhammad Arshad Khan, Sami Ullah Mumtaz, M. Masud, Ayesha Ijaz Sheikh, Sajid Abaid Ullah
Introduction: The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on public health has been widespread with clinically diverse manifestations ranging from asymptomatic presentation to critical illness. COVID-19 might influence different aspects of the stress process on the general population and healthcare workers (HCWs). Objectives: To examine the relationship of demographic variables with depression, anxiety, and stress and to compare stress levels in HCWs and the general population. Method: A cross-sectional study was conducted. A sample of 1,063 participants was collected based on two groups. The first group comprised of HCWs who were directly looking after COVID-19 confirmed or suspected patients and working in any primary, secondary, or tertiary care hospitals. The second group comprised of participants working in public-dealing departments or businesses. Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-42 (DASS-42) was administered to assess depression, anxiety, and stress. Result: Young people, females, and people having less work experience and without civil defense or disaster management training were more depressed, anxious, and stressed. Participants who had no access to scientific journals were more stressed. Average time spent on social media on COVID-19-related information, history of psychological illnesses, and use of sedatives after the COVID-19 pandemic positively predicted anxiety, depression, and stress. There was no significant difference in the scores of depression, anxiety, and stress for HCWs and the general population. Conclusion: The anxiety levels were comparable among HCWs and adults, with vulnerable groups being female gender, young adults, and those who had a previous history of depression or substance abuse. Special consideration must be given to mental health, and protocols must be designed to provide psychological and emotional support to susceptible individuals.
{"title":"Stress levels among healthcare workers and adult population during the third wave of COVID-19 pandemic in a metropolitan city","authors":"Asad Khan, Anam Ali, Faisal Masood, Muhammad Arshad Khan, Sami Ullah Mumtaz, M. Masud, Ayesha Ijaz Sheikh, Sajid Abaid Ullah","doi":"10.5055/jem.0762","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.0762","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on public health has been widespread with clinically diverse manifestations ranging from asymptomatic presentation to critical illness. COVID-19 might influence different aspects of the stress process on the general population and healthcare workers (HCWs). \u0000Objectives: To examine the relationship of demographic variables with depression, anxiety, and stress and to compare stress levels in HCWs and the general population. \u0000Method: A cross-sectional study was conducted. A sample of 1,063 participants was collected based on two groups. The first group comprised of HCWs who were directly looking after COVID-19 confirmed or suspected patients and working in any primary, secondary, or tertiary care hospitals. The second group comprised of participants working in public-dealing departments or businesses. Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-42 (DASS-42) was administered to assess depression, anxiety, and stress. \u0000Result: Young people, females, and people having less work experience and without civil defense or disaster management training were more depressed, anxious, and stressed. Participants who had no access to scientific journals were more stressed. Average time spent on social media on COVID-19-related information, history of psychological illnesses, and use of sedatives after the COVID-19 pandemic positively predicted anxiety, depression, and stress. There was no significant difference in the scores of depression, anxiety, and stress for HCWs and the general population. \u0000Conclusion: The anxiety levels were comparable among HCWs and adults, with vulnerable groups being female gender, young adults, and those who had a previous history of depression or substance abuse. Special consideration must be given to mental health, and protocols must be designed to provide psychological and emotional support to susceptible individuals.","PeriodicalId":38336,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Emergency Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46558195","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
T. Ejaz, Syed Ahsan Ali, S. Saadia, Saad Bin Zafar Mahmood, Madiha Iqbal, A. Siddiqui
Background: While studies have evaluated the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the mental health of healthcare workers (HCW), to our knowledge, there are no studies in Pakistan, which have compared psychological distress levels during the first and second waves of the pandemic. This study was done to assess anxiety levels of Internal Medicine residents and identify risk factors for psychological distress. Methodology: Cross-sectional study was conducted in the Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi. A questionnaire comprising of demographic data and risk assessment tools, a seven-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7), and a nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) was used for data collection from Internal Medicine residents using nonprobability convenience sampling technique in May–June 2020 and April 2021. Results: A total of 88 responses were recorded. Response rate was 75.7 percent (56/74) and 43.2 percent (32/74) during the first and second waves, respectively. Mean age was 27.9 ± 3.2 years and mean clinical career in years was 3.2 ± 2.1. Majority, 51.8 percent (29/56) and 68.8 percent (22/32), were not satisfied with community prevention measures and 75 percent (42/56) and 65.6 percent (21/32) considered interventions necessary in case of psychological distress during pandemic, during the first and second waves, respectively. A higher number of HCW reported their family not supporting their frontline work during the first wave (16.1 percent vs 3.1 percent; p value 0.023). There was a statistically significant difference in psychological distress levels as median GAD-7 scores were 5(IQR 2–8) vs 9.5(IQR 3.25–13) (p value 0.009) and median PHQ-9 scores were 4(IQR 2–11) vs. 7(IQR 4–s17) (p value 0.056) during the first and second waves, respectively. Conclusion: There was a significant difference in anxiety levels during the first and second waves of COVID-19, and family support for frontline work was higher during the second wave. Further studies are required to assess these differences.
{"title":"Of fear, burnout, and stress: Comparison of psychological distress levels among frontline medicine residents during different COVID-19 pandemic waves in Pakistan","authors":"T. Ejaz, Syed Ahsan Ali, S. Saadia, Saad Bin Zafar Mahmood, Madiha Iqbal, A. Siddiqui","doi":"10.5055/jem.0736","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.0736","url":null,"abstract":"Background: While studies have evaluated the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the mental health of healthcare workers (HCW), to our knowledge, there are no studies in Pakistan, which have compared psychological distress levels during the first and second waves of the pandemic. This study was done to assess anxiety levels of Internal Medicine residents and identify risk factors for psychological distress. \u0000Methodology: Cross-sectional study was conducted in the Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi. A questionnaire comprising of demographic data and risk assessment tools, a seven-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7), and a nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) was used for data collection from Internal Medicine residents using nonprobability convenience sampling technique in May–June 2020 and April 2021. \u0000Results: A total of 88 responses were recorded. Response rate was 75.7 percent (56/74) and 43.2 percent (32/74) during the first and second waves, respectively. Mean age was 27.9 ± 3.2 years and mean clinical career in years was 3.2 ± 2.1. Majority, 51.8 percent (29/56) and 68.8 percent (22/32), were not satisfied with community prevention measures and 75 percent (42/56) and 65.6 percent (21/32) considered interventions necessary in case of psychological distress during pandemic, during the first and second waves, respectively. A higher number of HCW reported their family not supporting their frontline work during the first wave (16.1 percent vs 3.1 percent; p value 0.023). There was a statistically significant difference in psychological distress levels as median GAD-7 scores were 5(IQR 2–8) vs 9.5(IQR 3.25–13) (p value 0.009) and median PHQ-9 scores were 4(IQR 2–11) vs. 7(IQR 4–s17) (p value 0.056) during the first and second waves, respectively. \u0000Conclusion: There was a significant difference in anxiety levels during the first and second waves of COVID-19, and family support for frontline work was higher during the second wave. Further studies are required to assess these differences.","PeriodicalId":38336,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Emergency Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47071321","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Shari L. Wilson, Elizabeth Potter-Nelson, Jessica L. Gaffney, Erin N. Redman, Belinda Rudinger
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has amplified concerns about gender equity, access to health services, and extractive rather than regenerative systems. In the spring and fall of 2020, a two-phase exploratory survey was conducted to inquire about people’s desires for the future and reflections on the pandemic. Respondents to the survey, more than two-thirds of whom were women, and more than 85 percent having earned a bachelor’s degree or higher, reported feelings of isolation and intensification in remote work, stress in caring for children restricted to their homes while attending virtual schooling, and societal inequities in the health system. The survey also identified that respondents expressed great resilience and optimism about the future. There is a window of opportunity for change after a disaster takes place, and respondents hope to take advantage of this time to emerge from the pandemic in a position to not only survive but flourish. This article describes the results of the surveys and makes recommendations for using this window of opportunity to address the concerns of access to healthcare and gender equity to build a more sustainable world.
{"title":"Post-COVID-19 visions: A new work–life model","authors":"Shari L. Wilson, Elizabeth Potter-Nelson, Jessica L. Gaffney, Erin N. Redman, Belinda Rudinger","doi":"10.5055/jem.0688","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.0688","url":null,"abstract":"The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has amplified concerns about gender equity, access to health services, and extractive rather than regenerative systems. In the spring and fall of 2020, a two-phase exploratory survey was conducted to inquire about people’s desires for the future and reflections on the pandemic. Respondents to the survey, more than two-thirds of whom were women, and more than 85 percent having earned a bachelor’s degree or higher, reported feelings of isolation and intensification in remote work, stress in caring for children restricted to their homes while attending virtual schooling, and societal inequities in the health system. The survey also identified that respondents expressed great resilience and optimism about the future. There is a window of opportunity for change after a disaster takes place, and respondents hope to take advantage of this time to emerge from the pandemic in a position to not only survive but flourish. This article describes the results of the surveys and makes recommendations for using this window of opportunity to address the concerns of access to healthcare and gender equity to build a more sustainable world.","PeriodicalId":38336,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Emergency Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44803813","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
T. L. Hollar, Timothy B Erickson, Sonny S. Patel, Kim Guevara, Richard DeVito, Jr.
Emergency Managers (EMs) have a unique set of mental health stressors compared to other professions. Early 2019 anecdotal information from the field combined with data from a Journal of Emergency Management (JEM) Higher Ed Survey conducted in 2017 suggested an accelerating rate of Emergency Managers leaving the field for other professions or leaving the field completely. Additional communication from practitioners in the field, before and during the pandemic, suggested that these unique stressors on EMs were compounding the exodus from the field. Trained seasoned EMs do not emerge from higher ed but are the product of years of higher education and experiential knowledge. The current rate of departure portents a shortage of trained EMs in the near future. The JEM Stressors and Mental Health Survey (SMHS) was designed to quantify the mental health of emergency managers using the validated Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale (STSS). The Emergency Response Questionnaire (ERQ), a validated survey, is used to confirm personality type of the respondent. Organizational type, education, and many other factors are assessed to determine their effect on the EM’s mental health, their ability to function efficiently and effectively, and their propensity to leave the field. The data collected will be used to establish baselines and support analysis and research on how we can better lead, support, recruit, retain, and grow as emergency management professionals and organizations capable of meeting the increasing demands of tomorrow.
{"title":"Stressors and Mental Health Survey of Emergency Management Professionals","authors":"T. L. Hollar, Timothy B Erickson, Sonny S. Patel, Kim Guevara, Richard DeVito, Jr.","doi":"10.5055/jem.0787","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.0787","url":null,"abstract":"Emergency Managers (EMs) have a unique set of mental health stressors compared to other professions. Early 2019 anecdotal information from the field combined with data from a Journal of Emergency Management (JEM) Higher Ed Survey conducted in 2017 suggested an accelerating rate of Emergency Managers leaving the field for other professions or leaving the field completely. Additional communication from practitioners in the field, before and during the pandemic, suggested that these unique stressors on EMs were compounding the exodus from the field. \u0000Trained seasoned EMs do not emerge from higher ed but are the product of years of higher education and experiential knowledge. The current rate of departure portents a shortage of trained EMs in the near future. \u0000The JEM Stressors and Mental Health Survey (SMHS) was designed to quantify the mental health of emergency managers using the validated Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale (STSS). The Emergency Response Questionnaire (ERQ), a validated survey, is used to confirm personality type of the respondent. Organizational type, education, and many other factors are assessed to determine their effect on the EM’s mental health, their ability to function efficiently and effectively, and their propensity to leave the field. \u0000The data collected will be used to establish baselines and support analysis and research on how we can better lead, support, recruit, retain, and grow as emergency management professionals and organizations capable of meeting the increasing demands of tomorrow.","PeriodicalId":38336,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Emergency Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42016325","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
T. Hansel, L. Saltzman, Temcula Robinson, Charles R. Figley
Scholarly literature has begun to report the psychosocial impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the general population and those who have fallen ill. Yet, few studies have explored the impact of COVID-19 on first responders and still fewer have focused on the impact of the pandemic on compassion fatigue among this highly exposed group. In this study, we hypothesize that COVID-19 experiences and disruption contribute to compassion fatigue and mental health problems. Seventy-four first responders completed an online survey via Qualtrics. The survey included items that assessed (1) mental health and pre-COVID-19 mental health or trauma exposure, (2) quality of life, (3) COVID-19 experiences and interdependence, (4) social and economic needs, (5) compassion fatigue, and (6) demographic and work characteristics. Multiple regressions using forward selection were conducted using SPSS version 27.0. Our findings support the concern that first responders are at greater risk for negative mental health sequelae, including compassion fatigue, in the context of COVID-19. Working a greater number of hours than usual, prior mental health concerns, identifying as female, concerns about community and personal health, and COVID-19 interdependence and disruptions were associated with higher levels of mental health problems and compassion fatigue. Importantly, decreases in perceived community closeness and quality of life were also associated with compassion fatigue and mental health problems among first responders. These findings highlight the need for services to address pre-existing and new mental health concerns and support compassion fatigue resilience among first responders in the context of COVID-19.
{"title":"First responders in COVID-19: The impact of compassion fatigue","authors":"T. Hansel, L. Saltzman, Temcula Robinson, Charles R. Figley","doi":"10.5055/jem.0673","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.0673","url":null,"abstract":"Scholarly literature has begun to report the psychosocial impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the general population and those who have fallen ill. Yet, few studies have explored the impact of COVID-19 on first responders and still fewer have focused on the impact of the pandemic on compassion fatigue among this highly exposed group. In this study, we hypothesize that COVID-19 experiences and disruption contribute to compassion fatigue and mental health problems. Seventy-four first responders completed an online survey via Qualtrics. The survey included items that assessed (1) mental health and pre-COVID-19 mental health or trauma exposure, (2) quality of life, (3) COVID-19 experiences and interdependence, (4) social and economic needs, (5) compassion fatigue, and (6) demographic and work characteristics. Multiple regressions using forward selection were conducted using SPSS version 27.0. Our findings support the concern that first responders are at greater risk for negative mental health sequelae, including compassion fatigue, in the context of COVID-19. Working a greater number of hours than usual, prior mental health concerns, identifying as female, concerns about community and personal health, and COVID-19 interdependence and disruptions were associated with higher levels of mental health problems and compassion fatigue. Importantly, decreases in perceived community closeness and quality of life were also associated with compassion fatigue and mental health problems among first responders. These findings highlight the need for services to address pre-existing and new mental health concerns and support compassion fatigue resilience among first responders in the context of COVID-19.","PeriodicalId":38336,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Emergency Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47018999","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Introduction: The physical and mental health impacts of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) response on healthcare workers has been extensively studied; less is known about impacts specific to the prehospital Emergency Medical Service’s (EMS) workforce. However, given data about the physical and psychological impacts to EMS workers participating in prior emergencies and disasters, the response to the COVID-19 pandemic likely increased risk among the EMS workforce. Methods: EMS agencies in the State of Texas were stratified according to agency structure, eg, fire-based, nonfire-based governmental, hospital-based private, nonhospital-based private, and other. A systematic sample of 10 agencies was selected from each of the five strata. An interview guide was developed to collect information about prior experience with disaster or emergency response, professional roles since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, and alternations to professional roles and EMS systems during both prior responses and the COVID-19 response. Interviews were transcribed and inductively coded to identify themes. Results: Five themes were identified in qualitative interviews. These included 1) early pandemic lessons, 2) protocol changes, 3) personal stressors, 4) professional stressors, and 5) lessons learned. Increased workloads, operational changes, fear of transmission to friends and family, and fatigue from working conditions were emphasized by participants. However, adaptations are being identified that could help EMS agencies and their workforces maintain resilience, even during an ongoing emergency response. Discussion: The COVID-19 response created unique professional and personal stressors to the EMS workforce and limited access to coping mechanisms previously used to reduce stress. Targeted studies are needed to guide the implementation of evidence-based interventions to protect the well-being of EMS personnel now and during future public health emergency and disaster responses.
{"title":"Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic response on the Emergency Medical Services workforce, Texas, USA","authors":"Maria Mendez, J. Horney","doi":"10.5055/jem.0761","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.0761","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: The physical and mental health impacts of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) response on healthcare workers has been extensively studied; less is known about impacts specific to the prehospital Emergency Medical Service’s (EMS) workforce. However, given data about the physical and psychological impacts to EMS workers participating in prior emergencies and disasters, the response to the COVID-19 pandemic likely increased risk among the EMS workforce. \u0000Methods: EMS agencies in the State of Texas were stratified according to agency structure, eg, fire-based, nonfire-based governmental, hospital-based private, nonhospital-based private, and other. A systematic sample of 10 agencies was selected from each of the five strata. An interview guide was developed to collect information about prior experience with disaster or emergency response, professional roles since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, and alternations to professional roles and EMS systems during both prior responses and the COVID-19 response. Interviews were transcribed and inductively coded to identify themes. \u0000Results: Five themes were identified in qualitative interviews. These included 1) early pandemic lessons, 2) protocol changes, 3) personal stressors, 4) professional stressors, and 5) lessons learned. Increased workloads, operational changes, fear of transmission to friends and family, and fatigue from working conditions were emphasized by participants. However, adaptations are being identified that could help EMS agencies and their workforces maintain resilience, even during an ongoing emergency response. \u0000Discussion: The COVID-19 response created unique professional and personal stressors to the EMS workforce and limited access to coping mechanisms previously used to reduce stress. Targeted studies are needed to guide the implementation of evidence-based interventions to protect the well-being of EMS personnel now and during future public health emergency and disaster responses.","PeriodicalId":38336,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Emergency Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41627921","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：