The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has exposed nurses to conditions that threaten their health, well-being, and ability to work. It is therefore critical to study nurses’ experiences and well-being during the current crisis in order to identify risk groups for ill health and potential sources of organizational intervention. The aim of this study was to explore perceptions of the most salient sources of stress in the early stages of the coronavirus pandemic in a sample of U.S. nurses. A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among a sample of 695 U.S. nurses in May 2020. Content analysis was conducted on nurses’ responses (n = 455) to an open-ended question on the most stressful situations they had experienced during the pandemic. Six distinct themes emerged from the analysis: exposure/infection-self; illness/death-others; workplace; personal protective equipment/supplies; unknowns; opinions/politics. Two sub-themes concerned restrictions associated with the pandemic and feelings of inadequacy/helplessness regarding patients and their treatment. More than half of all comments concerned stress related to problems in workplace response to the pandemic. Healthcare institutions should provide opportunities for nurses to discuss the stress they are experiencing, support one another, and make suggestions for workplace adaptations during this pandemic.

Objective: To determine the association between access to adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) and mental health outcomes among a sample of U.S. nurses. Methods: An online questionnaire was administered in May 2020 to Michigan nurses via three statewide nursing organizations (n = 695 respondents). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with mental health symptoms. Results: Nurses lacking access to adequate PPE (24.9%, n = 163) were more likely to report symptoms of depression (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.31, 2.94; P = 0.001), anxiety (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.12, 2.40; P = 0.01) and post-traumatic stress disorder (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.22, 2.74; P = 0.003). Conclusions: Healthcare organizations should be aware of the magnitude of mental health problems among nurses and vigilant in providing them with adequate PPE as the pandemic continues.

Objective: Healthcare is battling a conflict between the Quadruple Aims-reducing costs; improving population health, patient experience, and team well-being-and productivity. This quasi-experimental pilot study tested a 2 week intervention aimed to address the Quadruple Aims while improving productivity. Participants were 25 employees and their patients in a primary care clinic. One provider and their team implemented an efficiency-focused intervention that modified work roles and processes focused on utilizing all team members' skills as allowable by applicable licensure restrictions. The five remaining providers and their teams comprised the reference group, who continued patient care as usual. Study outcomes were measured via provider/staff and patient surveys and administrative data. Results: In total, 46 team surveys and 156 patient surveys were collected. Clinic output data were retrieved for 467 visits. Compared to the reference team, the intervention team performed better in all Quadruple Aims and productivity measures. The intervention group offered 48% more patient slots than the average reference team. These preliminary results support the feasibility of introducing substantial process changes that show promising improvement in both the Quadruple Aims and productivity. A larger-scale study over a longer time period is needed to confirm findings and examine feasibility and cost-effectiveness.

ObjectiveThis study aimed to develop a questionnaire for measuring patient perceptions of participating in clinical trials. Development was based on earlier research on patient views of involvement in medical care and a literature review. Patients were recruited from an ongoing clinical trial focused on cardiovascular illness and from an outpatient psychiatry department. Factor analysis was conducted on a pilot version of the questionnaire in 2016 and on a revised version in 2017.ResultsA total of 53 patients were recruited for the pilot study and 55 were recruited for the main study, substantially below the goal of 100 participants. Factor analysis revealed six factors measuring aspects of patients’ perceptions of participating in clinical trials, including motivation, risks and benefits, the nature of the trial itself, and practical considerations, such as cost and convenience. Inter-scale correlations ranged between 0.06 and 0.64, indicating acceptable scale independence. Reliability scores (Cronbach’s alphas) ranged from 0.62 to 0.85. Factor analysis results were somewhat unstable, with shared variance for several items across scales. This is likely due to the small sample sizes. In larger, more diverse patient samples, this questionnaire can be useful for measuring and incorporating patients’ views into the design and execution of clinical trials.

No abstract

Background Artificial and virtual technologies in healthcare have advanced rapidly, and healthcare systems have been adapting care accordingly. An intriguing new development is the virtual physician, which can diagnose and treat patients independently. Methods and findings This qualitative study of advanced degree students aimed to assess their perceptions of using a virtual primary care physician as a patient. Four focus groups were held: first year medical students, fourth year medical students, first year engineering/data science graduate students, and fourth year engineering/data science graduate students. The focus groups were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and content analyses of the transcripts was performed using a data-driven inductive approach. Themes identified concerned advantages, disadvantages, and the future of virtual primary care physicians. Within those main categories, 13 themes emerged and 31 sub-themes. Discussion While participants appreciated that a virtual primary care physician would be convenient, efficient, and cost-effective, they also expressed concern about data privacy and the potential for misdiagnosis. To garner trust from its potential users, future virtual primary physicians should be programmed with a sufficient amount of trustworthy data and have a high level of transparency and accountability for patients.

Background There has been a substantial decline in in-person care in inpatient and outpatient settings during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Avoidance of needed in-person care may contribute to an avoidable decline in patient health and an increase in mortality. While several systems and behavioral theories have been put forward to explain the decline, there is a lack of studies informed by patients’ own experiences. The current study applied a socio-ecological model encompassing patient, environmental, and institutional-related variables to examine patient-reported factors associated with avoidance of in-person care. Methods Between October and December 2020, a total of 3840 persons responded to a nationwide online questionnaire that was administered using ResearchMatch and Facebook. Self-reported avoidance of in-person care among those who needed it was the main outcome. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with avoidance of needed care. Findings Out of a total of 3372 respondents who reported that they needed in-person care during the early phase of the pandemic, 257 (7.6%) avoided it. Patient-related variables associated with avoiding needed care included younger age (odds ratio (OR), 1.46, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.94, p<0.01; <45 y/o vs 45+), inability to afford care (OR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.34, p<0.01), and greater COVID-related stress (OR = 1.36, CI 1.01 to 1.83, p<0.05). More frequent discussions about COVID with family and friends was the only significant environment-related avoidance of care variable (OR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.01–1.91, p < .05). Institution-related care avoidance variables included a negative patient healthcare experience rating (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.42, p<0.001), poor awareness of the institution’s safety protocol (OR = 1.79, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.51, p<0.01), and low ratings of the institution’s effectiveness in communicating their safety protocol (OR = 3.45, 95% CI 1.94 to 6.12, p<0.001). The final model predicted 11.9% of the variance in care avoidance. Conclusions These results suggest that care avoidance of in-person care during the initial phase of the pandemic was influenced by a patient’s demographics as well as environmental and healthcare institutional factors. Patients’ previous experiences and their awareness of healthcare systems’ safety protocols are important factors in care avoidance.

(1) Background: There is increasing scholarly support for the notion that properly implemented and used, technology can be of substantial benefit for older adults. Use of technology has been associated with improved self-rating of health and fewer chronic conditions. Use of technology such as handheld devices by older adults has the potential to improve engagement and promote cognitive and physical health. However, although, literature suggests some willingness by older adults to use technology, simultaneously there are reports of a more cautious attitude to its adoption. Our objective was to determine the opinions towards information technologies, with special reference to brain health, in healthy older adults either fully retired or still working in some capacity including older adult workers and retired adults living in an independent elderly living community. We were especially interested in further our understanding of factors that may play a role in technology adoption and its relevance to addressing health related issues in this population; (2) Methods: Two focus groups were conducted in an inner-city community. Participants were older adults with an interest in their general health and prevention of cognitive decline. They were asked to discuss their perceptions of and preferences for the use of technology. Transcripts were coded for thematic analysis; (3) Results: Seven common themes emerged from the focus group interviews: physical health, cognitive health, social engagement, organizing information, desire to learn new technology, advancing technology, and privacy/security; and (4) Conclusions: This study suggests that in order to promote the use of technology in older adults, one needs to consider wider contextual issues, not only device design per se, but the older adult’s rationale for using technology and their socio-ecological context.