The health of the healthcare workers

Joseph, Bobby; Joseph, Merlyn

doi:10.4103/0019-5278.197518

Cited by 166 publications

(162 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

151

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We defined healthcare workers as people providing healthcare services, whether they did so directly (for example, doctors and nurses) or indirectly (for example, laboratory technicians or people working with information systems). 9 Healthcare workers’ data came from the Scottish Workforce Information Standard System (SWISS) and General Practitioner Contractor Database (GPCD) (appendix 1). We excluded dental staff and those working exclusively in paediatric roles, in addition to other exclusions due to incomplete or inconsistent data (appendix 2).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk of hospital admission with coronavirus disease 2019 in healthcare workers and their households: nationwide linkage cohort study

Shah

Wood

Gribben

et al. 2020

BMJ

299

282

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo assess the risk of hospital admission for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) among patient facing and non-patient facing healthcare workers and their household members.DesignNationwide linkage cohort study.SettingScotland, UK, 1 March to 6 June 2020.ParticipantsHealthcare workers aged 18-65 years, their households, and other members of the general population.Main outcome measureAdmission to hospital with covid-19.ResultsThe cohort comprised 158 445 healthcare workers, most of them (90 733; 57.3%) being patient facing, and 229 905 household members. Of all hospital admissions for covid-19 in the working age population (18-65 year olds), 17.2% (360/2097) were in healthcare workers or their households. After adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic deprivation, and comorbidity, the risk of admission due to covid-19 in non-patient facing healthcare workers and their households was similar to the risk in the general population (hazard ratio 0.81 (95% confidence interval 0.52 to 1.26) and 0.86 (0.49 to 1.51), respectively). In models adjusting for the same covariates, however, patient facing healthcare workers, compared with non-patient facing healthcare workers, were at higher risk (hazard ratio 3.30, 2.13 to 5.13), as were household members of patient facing healthcare workers (1.79, 1.10 to 2.91). After sub-division of patient facing healthcare workers into those who worked in “front door,” intensive care, and non-intensive care aerosol generating settings and other, those in front door roles were at higher risk (hazard ratio 2.09, 1.49 to 2.94). For most patient facing healthcare workers and their households, the estimated absolute risk of hospital admission with covid-19 was less than 0.5%, but it was 1% and above in older men with comorbidity.ConclusionsHealthcare workers and their households contributed a sixth of covid-19 cases admitted to hospital. Although the absolute risk of admission was low overall, patient facing healthcare workers and their household members had threefold and twofold increased risks of admission with covid-19.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk of hospital admission with coronavirus disease 2019 in healthcare workers and their households: nationwide linkage cohort study

Shah

Wood

Gribben

et al. 2020

BMJ

299

282

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, healthcare workers (HCWs) should be prepared to manage the influx of patients during possibly life-threatening circumstances. A HCW is defined as ‘the one who delivers care and services to the sick and ailing either directly as doctors and nurses or indirectly as aides, helpers, laboratory technicians or even medical waste handlers’ 3…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors associated with healthcare workers willingness to participate in disasters: a cross-sectional study in Sana’a, Yemen

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesWillingness to participate in disasters is usually overlooked and not addressed in disaster preparedness training courses to ensure health service coverage. This will lead to issues during the disaster’s response. This study, therefore, aims to assess healthcare workers willingness to participate in biological and natural disasters, and to identify its associated factors.DesignThis is a cross-sectional study using a self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed to 1093 healthcare workers. The data were analysed using multiple logistic regression with significance level p<0.05. Ethical clearance and consent of the participants were duly obtained.SettingIn three public hospitals that provide tertiary-level healthcare in Sana’a City, Yemen.ParticipantsThere were 692 nurses and doctors (response rate 63.3%) completed the questionnaires.ResultsAlmost half of the participants 55.1% were nurses and 44.9% were doctors. The study found that self-efficacy was associated with willingness to participate in disaster response for any type of disasters (OR 1.319, 95% CI 1.197 to 1.453), natural disasters (OR 1.143, 95% CI 1.069 to 1.221) and influenza pandemic (OR 1.114, 95% CI 1.050 to 1.182). The results further show that willingness is associated with healthcare workers being young, male and having higher educational qualifications.ConclusionSelf-efficacy has been found to be an important factor associated with willingness. Improving self-efficacy through training in disaster preparedness may increase willingness of healthcare workers to participate in a disaster.

show abstract

“…Many healthcare workers, including those who directly or indirectly deliver care and services to patients [1], report that they often feel unprepared to effectively respond to major disasters [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Some of the concerns they express include: transportation problems, safety of self and family members, caretaking obligations, personal health issues, lack of personal preparedness, lack of confidence in medical facility's ability to respond effectively, insufficient training, and unwillingness to report to work [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Workforce preparedness for disasters: perceptions of clinical and non-clinical staff at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Most U.S. studies on workforce preparedness have a narrow scope, focusing primarily on perceptions of clinical staff in a single hospital and for one type of disaster. In contrast, this study compares the perceptions of workplace disaster preparedness among both clinical and non-clinical staff at all U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical facilities nationwide for three types of disasters (natural, epidemic/pandemic, and manmade). Methods The VA Preparedness Survey used a stratified simple random, web-based survey (fielded from October through December 2018) of all employees at VA medical facilities. We conducted bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses to compare the sociodemographic characteristics and perceptions of disaster preparedness between clinical and non-clinical VA staff. Results The study population included 4026 VA employees (2488 clinicians and 1538 non-clinicians). Overall, VA staff were less confident in their medical facility’s ability to respond to epidemic/pandemics and manmade disasters. Depending on the type of disaster, clinical staff, compared to non-clinical staff, were less likely to be confident in their VA medical facility’s ability to respond to natural disasters (OR:0.78, 95% CI:0.67–0.93, p < 0.01), pandemics (OR:0.82, 95% CI:0.70–0.96, p < 0.05), and manmade disasters (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.63–0.86, p < 0.001). On the other hand, clinicians, compared to non-clinicians, were 1.45 to 1.78 more likely to perceive their role in disaster response to be important (natural OR:1.57, 95% CI:1.32–1.87; pandemic OR:1.78, 95% CI:1.51–2.10; manmade: OR:1.45; 95% CI: 1.23–1.71; p’s < 0.001), and 1.27 to 1.29 more likely to want additional trainings to prepare for all three types of disasters (natural OR:1.29, 95% CI:1.10–1.51; pandemic OR:1.27, 95% CI:1.08–1.49; manmade OR:1.29; 95% CI:1.09–1.52; p’s < 0.01). Clinicians were more likely to be women, younger, and more educated (p’s < 0.001) than non-clinicians. Compared to clinicians, non-clinical staff had been employed longer with the VA (p < 0.025) and were more likely to have served in the U.S. Armed Forces (p < 0.001). Conclusions These findings suggest both a desire and a need for additional training, particularly for clinicians, and with a focus on epidemics/pandemics and manmade disasters. Training programs should underscore the importance of non-clinical roles when responding to disasters.

show abstract

The health of the healthcare workers

Cited by 166 publications

References 0 publications

Risk of hospital admission with coronavirus disease 2019 in healthcare workers and their households: nationwide linkage cohort study

Risk of hospital admission with coronavirus disease 2019 in healthcare workers and their households: nationwide linkage cohort study

Factors associated with healthcare workers willingness to participate in disasters: a cross-sectional study in Sana’a, Yemen

Workforce preparedness for disasters: perceptions of clinical and non-clinical staff at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About