Background The COVID-19 pandemic has driven primary healthcare (PHC) providers to use telehealth as an alternative to traditional face-to-face consultations. Providing telehealth that meets the needs of patients in a pandemic has presented many challenges for PHC providers. The aim of this study was to describe the positive and negative implications of using telehealth in one Canadian (Quebec) and one American (Massachusetts) PHC setting during the COVID-19 pandemic as reported by physicians. Methods We conducted 42 individual semi-structured video interviews with physicians in Quebec (N = 20) and Massachusetts (N = 22) in 2020. Topics covered included their practice history, changes brought by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the advantages and challenges of telehealth. An inductive and deductive thematic analysis was carried out to identify implications of delivering care via telehealth. Results Four key themes were identified, each with positive and negative implications: 1) access for patients; 2) efficiency of care delivery; 3) professional impacts; and 4) relational dimensions of care. For patients’ access, positive implications referred to increased availability of services; negative implications involved barriers due to difficulties with access to and use of technologies. Positive implications for efficiency were related to improved follow-up care; negative implications involved difficulties in diagnosing in the absence of direct physical examination and non-verbal cues. For professional impacts, positive implications were related to flexibility (teleworking, more availability for patients) and reimbursement, while negative implications were related to technological limitations experienced by both patients and practitioners. For relational dimensions, positive implications included improved communication, as patients were more at ease at home, and the possibility of gathering information from what could be seen of the patient’s environment; negative implications were related to concerns around maintaining the therapeutic relationship and changes in patients’ engagement and expectations. Conclusion Ensuring that health services provision meets patients’ needs at all times calls for flexibility in care delivery modalities, role shifting to adapt to virtual care, sustained relationships with patients, and interprofessional collaboration. To succeed, these efforts require guidelines and training, as well as careful attention to technological barriers and interpersonal relationship needs.

Objectives: The overall objectives of this rapid scoping review are to (a) identify the common triggers of stress, burnout, and depression faced by women in health care during the COVID-19 pandemic, and (b) explore individual-, organizational-, and systems-level interventions that can support the well-being of women HCWs during a pandemic.Design: This scoping review is registered on Open Science Framework (OSF) and was guided by the JBI guide to scoping reviews and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) extension to scoping reviews. A systematic search of literature databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo and ERIC) was conducted from inception until June 12, 2020. Two reviewers independently assessed full-text articles according to predefined criteria.Interventions: We included review articles and primary studies that reported on stress, burnout, and depression in HCWs; that primarily focused on women; and that included the percentage or number of women included. All English language studies from any geographical setting where COVID-19 has affected the population were reviewed.Primary and secondary outcome measures: Studies reporting on mental health outcomes (e.g., stress, burnout, and depression in HCWs), interventions to support mental health well-being were included.Results: Of the 2,803 papers found, 28 were included. The triggers of stress, burnout and depression are grouped under individual-, organizational-, and systems-level factors. There is a limited amount of evidence on effective interventions that prevents anxiety, stress, burnout and depression during a pandemic.Conclusions: Our preliminary findings show that women HCWs are at increased risk for stress, burnout, and depression during the COVID-19 pandemic. These negative outcomes are triggered by individual level factors such as lack of social support; family status; organizational factors such as access to personal protective equipment or high workload; and systems-level factors such as prevalence of COVID-19, rapidly changing public health guidelines, and a lack of recognition at work.

The global scale and unpredictable nature of the current COVID-19 pandemic have put a significant burden on health care and public health leaders, for whom preparedness plans and evidence-based guidelines have proven insufficient to guide actions. This article presents a review of empirical articles on the topics of “crisis leadership” and “pandemic” across medical and business databases between 2003 (since SARS) and—December 2020 and has identified 35 articles for detailed analyses. We use the articles’ evidence on leadership behaviors and skills that have been key to pandemic responses to characterize the types of leadership competencies commonly exhibited in a pandemic context. Task-oriented competencies, including preparing and planning, establishing collaborations, and conducting crisis communication, received the most attention. However, people-oriented and adaptive-oriented competencies were as fundamental in overcoming the structural, political, and cultural contexts unique to pandemics.

No abstract

ContextCOVID-19 has had an unprecedent impact on physicians, nurses and other health professionals around the world, and a serious healthcare burnout crisis is emerging as a result of this pandemic.ObjectivesWe aim to identify the causes of occupational stress and burnout in women in medicine, nursing and other health professions during the COVID-19 pandemic and interventions that can support female health professionals deal with this crisis through a rapid review.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and ERIC from December 2019 to 30 September 2020. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO and is available online. We selected all empirical studies that discussed stress and burnout in women healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.ResultsThe literature search identified 6148 citations. A review of abstracts led to the retrieval of 721 full-text articles for assessment, of which 47 articles were included for review. Our findings show that concerns of safety (65%), staff and resource adequacy (43%), workload and compensation (37%) and job roles and security (41%) appeared as common triggers of stress in the literature.Conclusions and relevanceThe current literature primarily focuses on self-focused initiatives such as wellness activities, coping strategies, reliance of family, friends and work colleagues to organisational-led initiatives such as access to psychological support and training. Very limited evidence exists about the organisational interventions such as work modification, financial security and systems improvement.

Objectives The overall objectives of this rapid scoping review are to (a) synthesize the common triggers of stress, burnout, and depression faced by women in health care during the COVID-19 pandemic, and (b) identify individual-, organizational-, and systems-level interventions that can support the well-being of women HCWs during a pandemic. Design This scoping review is registered on Open Science Framework (OSF) and was guided by the JBI guide to scoping reviews and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) extension to scoping reviews. A systematic search of literature databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo and ERIC) was conducted from 2003 until June 12, 2020. Two reviewers independently assessed full-text articles according to predefined criteria. Interventions We included review articles and primary studies that reported on stress, burnout, and depression in HCWs; that primarily focused on women; and that included the percentage or number of women included. All English language studies from any geographical setting where COVID-19 has affected the population were reviewed. Primary and secondary outcome measures Studies reporting on mental health outcomes (e.g., stress, burnout, and depression in HCWs), interventions to support mental health well-being were included. Results Of the 2,803 papers found, 31 were included. The triggers of stress, burnout and depression are grouped under individual-, organizational-, and systems-level factors. There is a limited amount of evidence on effective interventions that prevents anxiety, stress, burnout and depression during a pandemic. Conclusions Our preliminary findings show that women HCWs are at increased risk for stress, burnout, and depression during the COVID-19 pandemic. These negative outcomes are triggered by individual level factors such as lack of social support; family status; organizational factors such as access to personal protective equipment or high workload; and systems-level factors such as prevalence of COVID-19, rapidly changing public health guidelines, and a lack of recognition at work. Keywords Coronavirus, COVID-19, women in health care, stress, burnout, depression

ObjectiveHealthcare provider (HCP) burnout is on the rise with electronic medical record (EMR) use being cited as a factor, particularly with the rise of the COVID-19 pandemic. Burnout in HCPs is associated with negative patient outcomes, and, therefore, it is crucial to understand and address each factor that affects HCP burnout. This study aims to (a) assess the relationship between EMR use and burnout and (b) explore interventions to reduce EMR-related burnout.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL and SCOPUS on 29 July 2021. We selected all studies in English from any publication year and country that discussed burnout in HCPs (physicians, nurse practitioners and registered nurses) related to EMR use. Studies must have reported a quantitative relationship to be included. Studies that implemented an intervention to address this burnout were also included. All titles and abstracts were screened by two reviewers, and all full-text articles were reviewed by two reviewers. Any conflicts were addressed with a third reviewer and resolved through discussion. Quality of evidence of all included articles was assessed using the Quality Rating Scheme for Studies and Other Evidence.FindingsThe search identified 563 citations with 416 citations remaining after duplicate removal. A review of abstracts led to 59 studies available for full-text assessment, resulting in 25 studies included in the scoping review. Commonly identified associations between EMR-related burnout in HCPs included: message and alert load, time spent on EMRs, organisational support, EMR functionality and usability and general use of EMRs. Two articles employed team-based interventions to improve burnout symptoms without significant improvement in burnout scores.Conclusions and relevanceCurrent literature supports an association between EMR use and provider burnout. Very limited evidence exists for burnout-reducing interventions that address factors such as time spent on EMRs, organisational support or EMR design.

The tool and the data from this study can be used to raise awareness about bias in CME. Policymakers can use this tool to ensure that CME providers meet the standards for education, and CME providers can use the tool for conducting random audits of events they have accredited.