Search

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has led to large proportions of the labour market moving to remote work, while others have become unemployed. Those still at their physical workplace likely face increased risk of infection, compared to other workers. The objective of this paper is to understand the relationship between working arrangements, infection control programs (ICP), and symptoms of anxiety and depression among Canadian workers, not specifically working in healthcare. Methods A convenience-based internet survey of Canadian non-healthcare workers was facilitated through various labour organizations between April 26 and June 6, 2020. A total of 5180 respondents started the survey, of which 3779 were assessed as employed in a full-time or part-time capacity on 2 March 2020 (prior to large-scale COVID-19 pandemic responses in Canada). Of this sample, 3305 (87.5%) had complete information on main exposures and outcomes. Anxiety symptoms were measured using the Generalised Anxiety Disorder screener (GAD-2), and depressive symptoms using the Patient Health Questionnaire screener (PHQ-2). For workers at their physical workplace (site-based workers) we asked questions about the adequacy and implementation of 11 different types of ICP, and the adequacy and supply of eight different types of personal protective equipment (PPE). Respondents were classified as either: working remotely; site-based workers with 100% of their ICP/PPE needs met; site-based workers with 50–99% of ICP/PPE needs met; site-based workers with 1–49% of ICP/PPE needs met; site-based workers with none of ICP/PPE needs met; or no longer employed. Regression analyses examined the association between working arrangements and ICP/PPE adequacy and having GAD-2 and PHQ-2 scores of three and higher (a common screening point in both scales). Models were adjusted for a range of demographic, occupation, workplace, and COVID-19-specific factors. Results A total of 42.3% (95% CI: 40.6–44.0%) of the sample had GAD-2 scores of 3 and higher, and 34.6% (95% CI: 32.–36.2%) had PHQ-2 scores of 3 and higher. In initial analyses, symptoms of anxiety and depression were lowest among those working remotely (35.4 and 27.5%), compared to site-based workers (43.5 and 34.7%) and those who had lost their jobs (44.1 and 35.9%). When adequacy of ICP and PPE was taken into account, the lowest prevalence of anxiety and depressive symptoms was observed among site-based workers with all of their ICP needs being met (29.8% prevalence for GAD-2 scores of 3 and higher, and 23.0% prevalence for PHQ-2 scores of 3 and higher), while the highest prevalence was observed among site-based workers with none of their ICP needs being met (52.3% for GAD-2 scores of 3 and higher, and 45.8% for PHQ-2 scores of 3 and higher). Conclusion Our results suggest that the adequate design and implementation of employer-based ICP have implications for the mental health of site-based workers. As economies re-open the ongoing assessment of ICP and associated mental health outcomes among the workforce is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) is commonly used to detect delirium. Although accurate when administered by trained researchers, its sensitivity is low when performed by nurses in clinical practice. We aimed to understand the perspectives of nurses who used the CAM on orthopaedic wards. Design qualitative focus group study. Setting two academic hospitals in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Participants forty-three nurses who worked on orthopaedic inpatient units and used the CAM daily participated in one of eight focus group sessions. Measurements structured focus groups explored nurses' perception of delirium and the use of the CAM. Each transcript was coded and sampling continued until theme saturation. Results the participants (84% female, mean age 40 years, mean years in practice 12.8) had mixed feelings about the CAM. Some nurses praised its simplicity, while others preferred a narrative description of the delirium episode. Only 35% recalled receiving training to administer the CAM. Across the groups, disorientation was inappropriately used to evaluate level of consciousness and inattention. Objective testing was reportedly rarely used for assessing inattention. Most nurses retrospectively completed the CAM at the end of their shift by extrapolating from earlier observations rather than formally administering the tool. Reported challenges included differentiating delirium from dementia, assessing non-verbal patients and those with language barriers, time constraints, discrepancy with physicians' assessments and pressure to diagnose delirium. Conclusion despite its widespread use, the CAM was poorly understood by orthopaedic nurses at two academic institutions. The CAM may be difficult to implement in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]