ObjectivePandemics negatively impact healthcare workers’ (HCW’s) mental health and well-being causing additional feelings of anxiety, depression, moral distress and post-traumatic stress. A comprehensive review and evidence synthesis of HCW’s mental health and well-being interventions through pandemics reporting mental health outcomes was conducted addressing two questions: (1) What mental health support interventions have been reported in recent pandemics, and have they been effective in improving the mental health and well-being of HCWs? (2) Have any mobile apps been designed and implemented to support HCWs’ mental health and well-being during pandemics?DesignA narrative evidence synthesis was conducted using Cochrane criteria for synthesising and presenting findings when systematic review and pooling data for statistical analysis are not suitable due to the heterogeneity of the studies.Data sourcesEvidence summary resources, bibliographic databases, grey literature sources, clinical trial registries and protocol registries were searched.Eligibility criteriaSubject heading terms and keywords covering three key concepts were searched: SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus (or similar infectious diseases) epidemics, health workforce and mental health support interventions. Searches were limited to English-language items published from 1 January 2000 to 14 June 2022. No publication-type limit was used.Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors determined eligibility and extracted data from identified manuscripts. Data was synthesised into tables and refined by coauthors.Results2694 studies were identified and 27 papers were included. Interventions were directed at individuals and/or organisations and most were COVID-19 focused. Interventions had some positive impacts on HCW’s mental health and well-being, but variable study quality, low sample sizes and lack of control conditions were limitations. Two mobile apps were identified with mixed outcomes.ConclusionHCW interventions were rapidly designed and implemented with few comprehensively described or evaluated. Tailored interventions that respond to HCWs’ needs using experience co-design for mental health and well-being are required with process and outcome evaluation.

No abstract

Background News of the impact of COVID-19 around the world delivered a brief opportunity for Australian health services to plan new ways of delivering care to large numbers of people while maintaining staff safety through greater physical separation. The rapid pivot to telemedicine and virtual care provided immediate and longer term benefits; however, such rapid-cycle development also created risks. Objective The aim of this study was to understand the sociotechnical aspects of the rapid-cycle development of seven different COVID-19 virtual care tools, and to identify enablers, barriers, and risks at three health services in Victoria, Australia. Methods A qualitative, embedded, multiple case study design was adopted. Researchers from three health services collaborated with university researchers who were independent from those health services to gather and analyze structured interview data from key people involved in either clinical or technical aspects of designing and deploying seven different virtual care tools. Results The overall objectives of each health service reflected the international requirements for managing large numbers of patients safely but remotely and for protecting staff. However, the governance, digital maturity, and specific use cases at each institution shaped the methodology and specific outcomes required. Dependence on key individuals and their domain knowledge within an existing governance framework generally enabled rapid deployment, but sometimes posed barriers. Existing relationships with technical service developers enabled strong solutions, which in some cases were highly scalable. Conventional project methodologies such as steering committees, scope, budget control, tight functional specification, consumer engagement and codesign, universal accessibility, and postimplementation evaluation were ignored almost universally in this environment. Conclusions These three health services took a variety of approaches to the rapid-cycle development of virtual care tools to meet their urgent needs for triaging and remote monitoring during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Their experiences provided insights into many social and technical barriers and enablers to the development of virtual care tools. If these are addressed proactively, they will improve clinical governance and technical management of future virtual care. Some changes can be made within individual health services, while others entail health system policy reforms. Enhancing the environment for virtual care tool design and implementation now will yield returns not only during future health emergencies but also in many more routine care settings.

The research clearly demonstrates that hospital libraries are integral to a hospital's quality and safety systems. They make substantial and essential contributions through their professional information/knowledge management services and by ensuring access to evidence-based resources. The research found that there are varying levels of contributions, however, and it is suggested that these differences may be influenced by variables such as location and size of hospital. It is further suggested that for hospitals without a library service, or those with libraries that have limited capacity to deliver professional services and resources, there is likely to be an 'evidence-accessibility gap', and they may be at risk and not performing as well as they could in regard to NSQHS accreditation standards, and safety and quality systems.