ObjectiveTo explore how to build and maintain the resilience of frontline healthcare professionals exposed to COVID-19 outbreak working conditions.DesignScoping review supplemented with expert interviews to validate the findings.SettingHospitals.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, bioRxiv and medRxiv systematically and grey literature for articles focusing on the impact of COVID-19-like working conditions on the physical and/or mental health of healthcare professionals in a hospital setting. Articles using an empirical design about determinants or causes of physical and/or mental health and about interventions, measures and policies to preserve physical and/or mental health were included. Four experts were interviewed to reflect on the results from the scoping review.ResultsIn total, 4471 records were screened leading to an inclusion of 73 articles. Recommendations prior to the outbreak fostering resilience included optimal provision of education and training, resilience training and interventions to create a feeling of being prepared. Recommendations during the outbreak consisted of (1) enhancing resilience by proper provision of information, psychosocial support and treatment (eg, create enabling conditions such as forming a psychosocial support team), monitoring the health status of professionals and using various forms and content of psychosocial support (eg, encouraging peer support, sharing and celebrating successes), (2) tasks and responsibilities, in which attention should be paid to kind of tasks, task mix and responsibilities as well as the intensity and weight of these tasks and (3) work patterns and working conditions. Findings of the review were validated by experts.ConclusionsRecommendations were developed on how to build and maintain resilience of frontline healthcare professionals exposed to COVID-19 outbreak working conditions. These practical and easy to implement recommendations can be used by hospitals and other healthcare organisations to foster and preserve short-term and long-term physical and mental health and employability of their professionals.

Objectives To determine nurse-sensitive outcomes in district nursing care for community-living older people. Nurse-sensitive outcomes are defined as patient outcomes that are relevant based on nurses’ scope and domain of practice and that are influenced by nursing inputs and interventions. Design A Delphi study following the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method with two rounds of data collection. Setting District nursing care in the community care setting in the Netherlands. Participants Experts with current or recent clinical experience as district nurses as well as expertise in research, teaching, practice, or policy in the area of district nursing. Main outcome measures Experts assessed potential nurse-sensitive outcomes for their sensitivity to nursing care by scoring the relevance of each outcome and the ability of the outcome to be influenced by nursing care (influenceability). The relevance and influenceability of each outcome were scored on a nine-point Likert scale. A group median of 7 to 9 indicated that the outcome was assessed as relevant and/or influenceable. To measure agreement among experts, the disagreement index was used, with a score of <1 indicating agreement. Results In Delphi round two, 11 experts assessed 46 outcomes. In total, 26 outcomes (56.5%) were assessed as nurse-sensitive. The nurse-sensitive outcomes with the highest median scores for both relevance and influenceability were the patient’s autonomy, the patient’s ability to make decisions regarding the provision of care, the patient’s satisfaction with delivered district nursing care, the quality of dying and death, and the compliance of the patient with needed care. Conclusions This study determined 26 nurse-sensitive outcomes for district nursing care for community-living older people based on the collective opinion of experts in district nursing care. This insight could guide the development of quality indicators for district nursing care. Further research is needed to operationalise the outcomes and to determine which outcomes are relevant for specific subgroups.

Background: Peer review is at the heart of the scientific process. With the advent of digitisation, journals started to offer electronic articles or publishing online only. A new philosophy regarding the peer review process found its way into academia: the open peer review. Open peer review as practiced by BioMed Central (BMC) is a type of peer review where the names of authors and reviewers are disclosed and reviewer comments are published alongside the article. A number of articles have been published to assess peer reviews using quantitative research. However, no studies exist that used qualitative methods to analyse the content of reviewers' comments. Methods: A focused mapping review and synthesis (FMRS) was undertaken of manuscripts reporting qualitative research submitted to BMC open access journals from 1 January-31 March 2018. Free-text reviewer comments were extracted from peer review reports using a 77-item classification system organised according to three key dimensions that represented common themes and sub-themes. A two stage analysis process was employed. First, frequency counts were undertaken that allowed revealing patterns across themes/sub-themes. Second, thematic analysis was conducted on selected themes of the narrative portion of reviewer reports. Results: A total of 107 manuscripts submitted to nine open-access journals were included in the FMRS. The frequency analysis revealed that among the 30 most frequently employed themes "writing criteria" (dimension II) is the top ranking theme, followed by comments in relation to the "methods" (dimension I). Besides that, some results suggest an underlying quantitative mindset of reviewers. Results are compared and contrasted in relation to established reporting guidelines for qualitative research to inform reviewers and authors of frequent feedback offered to enhance the quality of manuscripts.

Little is known about how COVID-19 affects older patients living at home or how it affects district nursing teams providing care to these patients. This study aims to (1) explore, from the perspectives of Dutch district nurses, COVID-19′s impact on patients receiving district nursing care, district nursing teams, and their organisations during the first outbreak in March 2020 as well as one year later; and (2) identify the needs of district nurses regarding future outbreaks. A mixed-methods, two-phase, sequential exploratory design was followed. In total, 36 district nurses were interviewed during the first outbreak (March 2020), of which 18 participated in the follow-up questionnaire in April 2021. Thirteen themes emerged, which showed that the COVID pandemic has substantially impacted patient care and district nursing teams. During the first outbreak, nurses played a crucial role in organising care differently and worked under high pressure, leading to exhaustion, tiredness, and psychosocial problems, including fear of infection. A year later, nurses were better prepared to provide COVID care, but problems regarding work pressure and mental complaints remained. The identified needs focus on a sustainable implementation of leadership roles for district nurses. At the organisational and national levels, more support and appreciation are needed in terms of trust and appropriate policies.

No abstract