Search

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has drawn attention to the importance of facial (respiratory and eye) protective equipment (FPE). Optimal use of FPE in non-outbreak situations will enable front-line staff, such as emergency department (ED) clinicians, to adapt more rapidly and safely to the increased demands and skills required during an infectious disease outbreak., Methods: A survey, designed to determine the attitudes, beliefs and knowledge of healthcare workers around the use of FPE for protection against respiratory infections, was distributed to staff in a respiratory ward, an adult ED and a paediatric ED in Sydney, Australia prior to COVID-19., Results: The survey revealed differences between the respiratory ward and the EDs, and between professional groups. ED staff, particularly paediatric clinicians, were less likely than ward staff to use FPE appropriately during routine care. Medical staff were more likely to work outside of infection prevention and control policies., Discussion: The busy, relatively chaotic ED environment presents unique challenges for optimal compliance with safe use of FPE when caring for patients with respiratory symptoms., Conclusions: Building upon the lessons of the pandemic, it is timely to address the specific infection prevention and control needs of the ED environment to improve compliance with the use of FPE during non-outbreak situations., (Copyright © 2023 The Healthcare Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has critically challenged healthcare systems globally. Examining the experiences of healthcare workers (HCWs) is important for optimizing ongoing and future pandemic responses., Objectives: In-depth exploration of Australian HCWs' experiences of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, with a focus on reported stressors vis-à-vis protective factors., Methods: Individual interviews were performed with 63 HCWs in Australia. A range of professional streams and operational staff were included. Thematic analysis was performed., Results: Thematic analysis identified stressors centred on paucity of, or changing, evidence, leading to absence of, or mistrust in, guidelines; unprecedented alterations to the autonomy and sense of control of clinicians; and deficiencies in communication and support. Key protective factors included: the development of clear guidance from respected clinical leaders or recognized clinical bodies, interpersonal support, and strong teamwork, leadership, and a sense of organizational preparedness., Conclusions: This study provides insights into the key organizational sources of emotional stress for HCWs within pandemic responses and describes experiences of protective factors. HCWs experiencing unprecedented uncertainty, fear, and rapid change, rely on clear communication, strong leadership, guidelines endorsed by recognized expert groups or individuals, and have increased reliance on interpersonal support. Structured strategies for leadership and communication at team, service group and organizational levels, provision of psychological support, and consideration of the potential negative effects of centralizing control, would assist in ameliorating the extreme pressures of working within a pandemic environment., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)