Search

Mass disasters result in extensive health problems and make health care delivery problematic, as has been the case during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although COVID-19 was initially considered a pulmonary problem, it soon became clear that various other organs were involved. Thus, many care providers, including kidney health personnel, were overwhelmed or developed burnout. This review aims to describe the spectrum of burnout in mass disasters and suggests solutions specifically for nephrology personnel by extending previous experience to the COVID-19 pandemic. Burnout (a psychologic response to work-related stress) is already a frequent part of routine nephrology practice and, not surprisingly, is even more common during mass disasters due to increased workload and specific conditions, in addition to individual factors. Avoiding burnout is essential to prevent psychologic and somatic health problems in personnel as well as malpractice, understaffing, and inadequate health care delivery, all of which increase the health care burden of disasters. Burnout may be prevented by predisaster organizational measures, which include developing an overarching plan and optimizing health care infrastructure, and ad hoc disaster-specific measures that encompass both organizational and individual measures. Organizational measures include increasing safety, decreasing workload and fear of malpractice, optimizing medical staffing and material supplies, motivating personnel, providing mental health support, and enabling flexibility in working circumstances. Individual measures include training on coping with stress and problematic conditions, minimizing the stigma of emotional distress, and maintaining physical health. If these measures fall short, asking for external help is mandatory to avoid an inefficient disaster health care response. Minimizing burnout by applying these measures will improve health care provision, thus saving as many lives as possible., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

Mass disasters are characterized by a disparity between healthcare demand and supply, which hampers complex therapies like kidney transplantation. Considering the scarcity of publications on previous disasters, we reviewed transplantation practice during the recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and dwelled upon this experience to guide transplantation strategies in the future pandemic and non-pandemic catastrophes. We strongly suggest continuing transplantation programs during mass disasters, if medical and logistic operational circumstances are appropriate. Postponing transplantations from living donors and referral of urgent cases to safe regions or hospitals are justified. Specific preventative measures in anticipated disasters (such as vaccination programs during pandemics or evacuation in case of hurricanes or wars) may be useful to minimize risks. Immunosuppressive therapies should consider stratifying risk status and avoiding heavy immune suppression in patients with a low probability of therapeutic success. Discharging patients at the earliest convenience is justified during pandemics, whereas delaying discharge is reasonable in other disasters, if infrastructural damage results in unhygienic living environments for the patients. In the outpatient setting, telemedicine is a useful approach to reduce the patient load to hospitals, to minimize the risk of nosocomial transmission in pandemics and the need for transport in destructive disasters. If it comes down to saving as many lives as possible, some ethical principles may vary in function of disaster circumstances, but elementary ethical rules are non-negotiable. Patient education is essential to minimize disaster-related complications and to allow for an efficient use of healthcare resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]