BackgroundPatient experience is positively associated with both clinical effectiveness and patient safety and should be a priority for emergency care providers. While both quantitative and qualitative approaches can be used to evaluate patient experience in the emergency department (ED), the latter is well aligned to develop a detailed understanding of features influencing the lived experience of ED patients. This study aimed to systematically review the literature of qualitative studies to identify determinants of adult patient experience in the ED.MethodsA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis compliant systematic review was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, BNI and bibliography searches to identify qualitative studies exploring patient experiences in ED published in English between 1997 and 2018. Quality assessment was conducted using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Descriptive text and quotations relating to patient experience were extracted from included studies and a meta-synthesis conducted using thematic analysis.ResultsA total of 625 records were screened from which 40 studies underwent full review and 22 were included. Results were coded by two researchers (BG and JML). Meta-synthesis identified 198 discrete units of analysis which were clustered around five analytical themes. These were based on the perceived ‘needs’ of patients visiting the ED and were defined as communication, emotional, competent care, physical/environmental and waiting needs. Findings were translated into a conceptual model for optimising patient experience in the ED.ConclusionThis meta-synthesis provides a framework for understanding the determinants of patient experience in the ED. The resulting conceptual model and recommendations may have the potential to directly inform practice and improve the patient experience.

ObjectiveTo quantify psychological distress experienced by emergency, anaesthetic and intensive care doctors during the acceleration phase of COVID-19 in the UK and Ireland.MethodsInitial cross-sectional electronic survey distributed during acceleration phase of the first pandemic wave of COVID-19 in the UK and Ireland (UK: 18 March 2020–26 March 2020 and Ireland: 25 March 2020–2 April 2020). Surveys were distributed via established specialty research networks, within a three-part longitudinal study. Participants were doctors working in emergency, anaesthetic and intensive medicine during the first pandemic wave of COVID-19 in acute hospitals across the UK and Ireland. Primary outcome measures were the General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12). Additional questions examined personal and professional characteristics, experiences of COVID-19 to date, risk to self and others and self-reported perceptions of health and well-being.Results5440 responses were obtained, 54.3% (n=2955) from emergency medicine and 36.9% (n=2005) from anaesthetics. All levels of doctor seniority were represented. For the primary outcome of GHQ-12 score, 44.2% (n=2405) of respondents scored >3, meeting the criteria for psychological distress. 57.3% (n=3045) had never previously provided clinical care during an infectious disease outbreak but over half of respondents felt somewhat prepared (48.6%, n=2653) or very prepared (7.6%, n=416) to provide clinical care to patients with COVID-19. However, 81.1% (n=4414) either agreed (31.1%, n=2709) or strongly agreed (31.1%, n=1705) that their personal health was at risk due to their clinical role.ConclusionsFindings indicate that during the acceleration phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, almost half of frontline doctors working in acute care reported psychological distress as measured by the GHQ-12. Findings from this study should inform strategies to optimise preparedness and explore modifiable factors associated with increased psychological distress in the short and long term.Trial registration numberISRCTN10666798.

ObjectivesThe psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on doctors is a significant concern. Due to the emergence of multiple pandemic waves, longitudinal data on the impact of COVID-19 are vital to ensure an adequate psychological care response. The primary aim was to assess the prevalence and degree of psychological distress and trauma in frontline doctors during the acceleration, peak and deceleration of the COVID-19 first wave. Personal and professional factors associated with psychological distress are also reported.DesignA prospective online three-part longitudinal survey.SettingAcute hospitals in the UK and Ireland.ParticipantsFrontline doctors working in emergency medicine, anaesthetics and intensive care medicine during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020.Primary outcome measuresPsychological distress and trauma measured using the General Health Questionnaire-12 and the Impact of Events-Revised.ResultsThe initial acceleration survey distributed across networks generated a sample of 5440 doctors. Peak and deceleration response rates from the original sample were 71.6% (n=3896) and 56.6% (n=3079), respectively. Prevalence of psychological distress was 44.7% (n=1334) during the acceleration, 36.9% (n=1098) at peak and 31.5% (n=918) at the deceleration phase. The prevalence of trauma was 23.7% (n=647) at peak and 17.7% (n=484) at deceleration. The prevalence of probable post-traumatic stress disorder was 12.6% (n=343) at peak and 10.1% (n=276) at deceleration. Worry of family infection due to clinical work was the factor most strongly associated with both distress (R2=0.06) and trauma (R2=0.10).ConclusionFindings reflect a pattern of elevated distress at acceleration and peak, with some natural recovery. It is essential that policymakers seek to prevent future adverse effects through (a) provision of vital equipment to mitigate physical and psychological harm, (b) increased awareness and recognition of signs of psychological distress and (c) the development of clear pathways to effective psychological care.Trial registration numberISRCTN10666798.

No abstract

Overt electronic communication systems may have a disproportionate impact in determining the likelihood for successful interruptions. Formal consideration of how to prioritise and manage interruptions from various channels could be usefully added to emergency medicine education and training.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic is putting an unprecedented strain on healthcare systems globally. The psychological impact on frontline doctors of dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic is currently unknown. This longitudinal professional survey aims to understand the evolving and cumulative effects of working during the COVID-19 outbreak on the psychological well-being of doctors working in emergency departments (ED), intensive care units (ICU) and anaesthetics during the pandemic.Methods and analysisThis study is a longitudinal questionnaire-based study with three predefined time points spanning the acceleration, peak and deceleration phases of the COVID-19 pandemic.The primary outcomes are psychological distress and post-trauma stress as measured by the General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) and Impact of Events Scale-Revised (IES-R). Data related to personal and professional characteristics will also be collected. Questionnaires will be administered prospectively to all doctors working in ED, ICU and anaesthetics in the UK and Ireland via existing research networks during the sampling period. Data from the questionnaires will be analysed to assess the prevalence and degree of psychological distress and trauma, and the nature of the relationship between personal and professional characteristics and the primary outcomes. Data will be described, analysed and disseminated at each time point; however, the primary endpoint will be psychological distress and trauma at the final time point.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from the University of Bath, UK (ref: 4421), and Children’s Health Ireland at Crumlin, Ethics Committee. Regulatory approval from the Health Regulation Authority (UK), Health and Care Research Wales (IRAS: 281944).This study is limited by the fact that it focuses on doctors only and is survey based without further qualitative interviews of participants. It is expected this study will provide clear evidence of the psychological impact of COVID-19 on doctors and will allow present and future planning to mitigate against any psychological impact.Trial registration numberISRCTN10666798.

ObjectivesTo determine the need for recovery (NFR) among emergency physicians and to identify demographic and occupational characteristics associated with higher NFR scores.DesignCross-sectional electronic survey.SettingEmergency departments (EDs) (n=112) in the UK and Ireland.ParticipantsEmergency physicians, defined as any registered physician working principally within the ED, responding between June and July 2019.Main outcome measureNFR Scale, an 11-item self-administered questionnaire that assesses how work demands affect intershift recovery.ResultsThe median NFR Score for all 4247 eligible, consented participants with a valid NFR Score was 70.0 (95% CI: 65.5 to 74.5), with an IQR of 45.5–90.0. A linear regression model indicated statistically significant associations between gender, health conditions, type of ED, clinical grade, access to annual and study leave, and time spent working out-of-hours. Groups including male physicians, consultants, general practitioners (GPs) within the ED, those working in paediatric EDs and those with no long-term health condition or disability had a lower NFR Score. After adjusting for these characteristics, the NFR Score increased by 3.7 (95% CI: 0.3 to 7.1) and 6.43 (95% CI: 2.0 to 10.8) for those with difficulty accessing annual and study leave, respectively. Increased percentage of out-of-hours work increased NFR Score almost linearly: 26%–50% out-of-hours work=5.7 (95% CI: 3.1 to 8.4); 51%–75% out-of-hours work=10.3 (95% CI: 7.6 to 13.0); 76%–100% out-of-hours work=14.5 (95% CI: 11.0 to 17.9).ConclusionHigher NFR scores were observed among emergency physicians than reported in any other profession or population to date. While out-of-hours working is unavoidable, the linear relationship observed suggests that any reduction may result in NFR improvement. Evidence-based strategies to improve well-being such as proportional out-of-hours working and improved access to annual and study leave should be carefully considered and implemented where feasible.