Frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) fighting COVID-19 have been associated with depression and anxiety, but there is limited data to illustrate these changes over time. We aim to quantify the changes in depression and anxiety amongst Emergency Department (ED) HCWs over one year and examine the factors associated with these changes. In this longitudinal single-centre study in Singapore, all ED HCWs were prospectively recruited face-to-face. Paper-based surveys were administered in June 2020 and June 2021. Depression and anxiety were measured using DASS-21. The results of 241 HCWs who had completed both surveys were matched. There was significant improvement in anxiety amongst all HCWs (Mean: 2020: 2.85 (±3.19) vs. 2021: 2.54 (±3.11); Median: 2020: 2 (0–4) vs. 2021: 2 (0–4), p = 0.045). HCWs living with elderly and with concerns about infection risk had higher odds of anxiety; those living with young children had lower odds of anxiety. There was significant worsening depression amongst doctors (Mean: 2020: 2.71 (±4.18) vs. 2021: 3.60 (±4.50); Median: 2020: 1 (0–3) vs. 2021: 3 (0–5), p = 0.018). HCWs ≥ 41 years, living with elderly and with greater concerns about workload had higher odds of depression. HCWs who perceived better workplace support and better social connectedness had lower odds of depression. In summary, our study showed significant improvement in anxiety amongst ED HCWs and significant worsening depression amongst ED doctors over one year. Age, living with elderly, and concerns about workload and infection risk were associated with higher odds of depression and anxiety.
Background: Dispatch services (DS's) form an integral part of emergency medical service (EMS) systems. The role of a dispatcher has also evolved into a crucial link in patient care delivery, particularly in dispatcher assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DACPR) during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Yet, there has been a paucity of research into the emerging area of dispatch science in Asia. This paper compares the characteristics of DS's, and state of implementation of DACPR within the Pan-Asian Resuscitation Outcomes (PAROS) network. Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive survey addressing population characteristics, DS structures and levels of service, state of DACPR implementation (including protocols and quality improvement programs) among PAROS DS's. Results: 9 DS's responded, representing a total of 23 dispatch centres from 9 countries that serve over 80 million people. Most PAROS DS's operate a tiered dispatch response, have implemented medical oversight, and tend to be staffed by dispatchers with a predominantly medical background. Almost all PAROS DS's have begun tracking key EMS indicators. 77.8% (n = 7) of PAROS DS's have introduced DACPR. Of the DS's that have rolled out DACPR, 71.4% (n = 5) provided instructions in over one language. All DS's that implemented DACPR and provided feedback to dispatchers offered feedback on missed OHCA recognition. The majority of DS's (83.3%; n = 5) that offered DACPR and provided feedback to dispatchers also implemented corrective feedback, while 66.7% (n = 4) offered positive feedback. Compression-only CPR was the standard instruction for PAROS DS's. OHCA recognition sensitivity varied widely in PAROS DS's, ranging from 32.6% (95% CI: 29.9-35.5%) to 79.2% (95% CI: 72.9-84.4%). Median time to first compression ranged from 120 s to 220 s. Conclusions: We found notable variations in characteristics and state of DACPR implementation between PAROS DS's. These findings will lay the groundwork for future DS and DACPR studies in the PAROS network.
Background Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) increases an individual's chance of survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), but the frequency of bystander CPR is low in many communities. We aimed to assess the cumulative effect of CPR-targeted public health interventions in Singapore, which were incrementally introduced between 2012 and 2016. Methods We did a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study of adult, non-traumatic OHCAs, through the Singapore registry. National interventions introduced during this time included emergency services interventions, as well as dispatch-assisted CPR (introduced on July 1, 2012), a training programme for CPR and automated external defibrillators (April 1, 2014), and a first responder mobile application (myResponder; April 17, 2015). Using multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression, we modelled the likelihood of receiving bystander CPR with the increasing number of interventions, accounting for year as a random effect. Findings The Singapore registry contained 11 465 OHCA events between Jan 1, 2011, and Dec 31, 2016. Paediatric arrests, arrests witnessed by emergency medical services, and healthcare-facility arrests were excluded, and 6788 events were analysed. Bystander CPR was administered in 3248 (48%) of 6788 events. Compared with no intervention, likelihood of bystander CPR was not significantly altered by the addition of emergency medical services interventions (odds ratio [OR] 1•33 [95% CI 0•98-1•79]; p=0•065), but increased with implementation of dispatchassisted CPR (3•72 [2•84-4•88]; p<0•0001), with addition of the CPR and automated external defibrillator training programme (6•16 [4•66-8•14]; p<0•0001), and with addition of the myResponder application (7•66 [5•85-10•03]; p<0•0001). Survival to hospital discharge increased after the addition of all interventions, compared with no intervention (OR 3•10 [95% CI 1•53-6•26]; p<0•0001). Interpretation National bystander-focused public health interventions were associated with an increased likelihood of bystander CPR, and an increased survival to hospital discharge. Understanding the combined impact of public health interventions might improve strategies to increase the likelihood of bystander CPR, and inform targeted initiatives to improve survival from OHCA.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.