No abstract

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic generated a surge of critically ill patients greater than the NHS capacity. Additionally there have been multiple well-documented impacts associated with the national COVID-19 pandemic surge on ICU workers including an increased prevalence of mental health disorders on a scale potentially sufficient to impair high-quality care delivery. Aim: To identify prevalence of probable mental health disorders, functional impairment and establish demographic and professional predictors of probable mental health disorders, and functional impairment, in ICU staff between November 2020 to April 2021. Methods: English ICU staff were surveyed before, during and after the winter 2020/2021 surge using a survey which comprised of validated measures of mental health. Results: 6080 surveys were completed, by nurses (57.5%), doctors (27.9%), and other healthcare staff (14.5%). Reporting probable mental health disorders increased from 51% (prior to), to 64% (during) and then dropped to 46% (after) the peak. Younger, less experienced and nursing staff were most likely to report probable mental health disorders. Additionally, during and after the winter, over 50% of participants met threshold criteria for functional impairment. Staff who reported probable post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety or depression were more likely to meet threshold criteria for functional impairment. Conclusions: The winter of 2020/2021 was associated with an increase in poor mental health outcomes and functional impairment during a period of peak caseload. These effects are likely to impact on patient care outcomes and the longer-term resilience of the healthcare workforce.

Objectives: We examined whether providing different types of information about Long COVID would affect expectations about the illness. Design: A 2 (Illness description: Long COVID vs ongoing COVID-19 recovery) x 2 (Illness uncertainty: uncertainty emphasised vs uncertainty not emphasised) x 2 (Efficacy of support: enhanced support vs basic support) between-subjects randomised online experimental study. Setting: The online platform Prolific, collected in October 2021. Participants: A representative sample of 1110 members of the public in the UK. Interventions: Participants were presented with a scenario describing a positive COVID-19 test result and then presented with one of eight scenarios describing a Long COVID diagnosis. Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: Various outcome measures relating to illness expectations were captured including: symptom severity, symptom duration, quality of life, personal control, treatment control and illness coherence. Results: We ran a series of 2 x 2 x 2 ANOVAs on the outcome variables. We found a main effect of illness description: individuals reported longer symptom duration and less illness coherence when the illness was described as Long COVID (compared to ongoing COVID-19 recovery). There was a main effect of illness uncertainty: when uncertainty was emphasised, participants reported longer expected symptom duration, less treatment control, and less illness coherence than when uncertainty was not emphasised. There was also a main effect of efficacy of support: participants reported higher personal control and higher treatment control when support was enhanced (compared to basic support). We also found an interaction between illness description and efficacy of support: when support was enhanced, participants reported less illness coherence for Long COVID (compared to ongoing COVID-19 recovery). Conclusions: Communications around Long COVID should not emphasise symptom uncertainty and should provide people with information on how they can facilitate their recovery and where they can access additional support. The findings also suggest that use of the term ongoing COVID-19 recovery, where possible, may reduce negative expectations associated with the illness.

No abstract