There is concern among public health professionals that the current economic downturn, initiated by the financial crisis that started in 2007, could precipitate the transmission of infectious diseases while also limiting capacity for control. Although studies have reviewed the potential effects of economic downturns on overall health, to our knowledge such an analysis has yet to be done focusing on infectious diseases. We performed a systematic literature review of studies examining changes in infectious disease burden subsequent to periods of crisis. The review identified 230 studies of which 37 met our inclusion criteria. Of these, 30 found evidence of worse infectious disease outcomes during recession, often resulting from higher rates of infectious contact under poorer living circumstances, worsened access to therapy, or poorer retention in treatment. The remaining studies found either reductions in infectious disease or no significant effect. Using the paradigm of the “SIR” (susceptible-infected-recovered) model of infectious disease transmission, we examined the implications of these findings for infectious disease transmission and control. Key susceptible groups include infants and the elderly. We identified certain high-risk groups, including migrants, homeless persons, and prison populations, as particularly vulnerable conduits of epidemics during situations of economic duress. We also observed that the long-term impacts of crises on infectious disease are not inevitable: considerable evidence suggests that the magnitude of effect depends critically on budgetary responses by governments. Like other emergencies and natural disasters, preparedness for financial crises should include consideration of consequences for communicable disease control.

Background A lower recruitment and high turnover rate of registered nurses have resulted in a global shortage of nurses. In the UK, prior to the COVID-19 epidemic, nurses’ intention to leave rates were between 30 and 50% suggesting a high level of job dissatisfaction. Methods In this study, we analysed data from a cross-sectional mixed-methods survey developed by the Royal College of Nursing and administered to the nursing workforce across all four UK nations, to explore the levels of dissatisfaction and demoralisation- one of the predictors of nurses’ intention to leave. We carried out logistic regression analysis on available data in order to determine what impacts job dissatisfaction. Results In total, 1742 nurses responded to questions about working conditions on their last shift. We found that nearly two-thirds of respondents were demoralised. Nurses were five times more likely (OR 5.08, 95% CI: 3.82–6.60) to feel demoralised if they reported missed care. A perceived lack of support had nearly the same impact on the level of demoralisation (OR 4.8, 95% CI: 3.67–6.38). These findings were reflected in the qualitative findings where RNs reported how staffing issues and failures in leadership, left them feeling disempowered and demoralised. Conclusion A large proportion of nurses reported feeling dissatisfied and demoralised. In order to reduce the negative impact of dissatisfaction and improve retention, more research needs to investigate the relationship dynamics within healthcare teams and how the burden experienced by RNs when unsupported by managers impacts on their ability to provide safe, good-quality care. These findings predate the current Covid-19 pandemic outbreak which may have had a further detrimental effect on job satisfaction in the UK and other nation’s nursing workforce.

No abstract

Aim To explore how the COVID‐19 pandemic affected nursing associate work, training and well‐being experiences. Design Cross‐sectional survey. Methods A survey of trainee and newly qualified nursing associates was completed in July 2020. Closed responses were analysed using descriptive statistics with inferential comparisons made between community and secondary care settings. Open questions were analysed thematically. Results Sixty‐four participants responded. Over half (53.2%) experienced an increased workload with 24.2% reporting extensions in their role. One third (32.3%) were redeployed, and a quarter (24.2%) did not feel safety concerns were adequately addressed when raised. Those working in the community reported significantly more concerns about staffing ( p = .03), working overtime ( p = .03), missed care ( p = .02) and safety ( p = .04). Despite this, many (75.8%) participants felt able to provide the same standards of care. Several spoke about enhanced teamwork, and the majority (96.8%) were not looking to leave their post.

ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to understand the experiences of advanced practice nurses (APNs) in the UK during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in relation to safety, shortages and retention.DesignA cross-sectional, mixed-methods survey.SettingAPNs in any UK setting.ParticipantsThe survey was sent to an existing UK-wide cohort of APNs. 124 APNs responded (51%).ResultsUK-based APNs in this study reported shortages of staff (51%) and personal protective equipment (PPE) (68%) during the first 3 months of the coronavirus outbreak. Almost half (47%) had considered leaving their job over the same 3 months. Despite difficulties, there were reports of positive changes to working practice that have enhanced care.ConclusionUK APNs report COVID-19-related shortages in staff and equipment across primary and secondary care and all regions of the UK. Shortages of PPE during a pandemic are known to be a factor in the development of mental health sequelae as well as a risk factor for increased turnover and retention issues. Half of APNs surveyed were considering a change in job. The UK risks a further crisis in staff morale and retention if this is not acknowledged and addressed. APNs also expressed concern about patients not receiving routine care as many specialties closed or reduced working during the crisis. However, there were also many examples of good practice, positive changes and innovation.