ObjectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic has set unprecedented demand on the healthcare workforce around the world. The UK has been one of the most affected countries in Europe. The aim of this study was to explore the perceptions and experiences of healthcare workers (HCWs) in relation to COVID-19 and care delivery models implemented to deal with the pandemic in the UK.MethodsThe study was designed as a rapid appraisal combining: (1) a review of UK healthcare policies (n=35 policies), (2) mass media and social media analysis of front-line staff experiences and perceptions (n=101 newspaper articles, n=1 46 000 posts) and (3) in-depth (telephone) interviews with front-line staff (n=30 interviews). The findings from all streams were analysed using framework analysis.ResultsLimited personal protective equipment (PPE) and lack of routine testing created anxiety and distress and had a tangible impact on the workforce. When PPE was available, incorrect size and overheating complicated routine work. Lack of training for redeployed staff and the failure to consider the skills of redeployed staff for new areas were identified as problems. Positive aspects of daily work reported by HCWs included solidarity between colleagues, the establishment of well-being support structures and feeling valued by society.ConclusionOur study highlighted the importance of taking into consideration the experiences and concerns of front-line staff during a pandemic. Staff working in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic advocated clear and consistent guidelines, streamlined testing of HCWs, administration of PPE and acknowledgement of the effects of PPE on routine practice.

Background Substantial evidence has highlighted the importance of considering the mental health of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, and several organisations have issued guidelines with recommendations. However, the definition of well-being and the evidence base behind such guidelines remain unclear. Aims The aims of the study are to assess the applicability of well-being guidelines in practice, identify unaddressed healthcare workers’ needs and provide recommendations for supporting front-line staff during the current and future pandemics. Method This paper discusses the findings of a qualitative study based on interviews with front-line healthcare workers in the UK (n = 33), and examines them in relation to a rapid review of well-being guidelines developed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 14). Results The guidelines placed greater emphasis on individual mental health and psychological support, whereas healthcare workers placed greater emphasis on structural conditions at work, responsibilities outside the hospital and the invaluable support of the community. The well-being support interventions proposed in the guidelines did not always respond to the lived experiences of staff, as some reported not being able to participate in these interventions because of understaffing, exhaustion or clashing schedules. Conclusions Healthcare workers expressed well-being needs that aligned with socio-ecological conceptualisations of well-being related to quality of life. This approach to well-being has been highlighted in literature on support of healthcare workers in previous health emergencies, but it has not been monitored during this pandemic. Well-being guidelines should explore the needs of healthcare workers, and contextual characteristics affecting the implementation of recommendations.

Background Substantial evidence has highlighted the importance of considering healthcare workers′ (HCW) mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic, and several organisations have issued guidelines with recommendations. However, the definition of wellbeing and the evidence-base behind such guidelines remains unclear. Objectives Assessing the applicability of wellbeing guidelines in practice; identify unaddressed HCWs′ needs; and provide recommendations for supporting frontline staff during the current and future pandemics. Methods and Design This paper discusses the findings of a qualitative study based on interviews with frontline healthcare staff in the UK and examines them in relation to a rapid review of wellbeing guidelines developed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Results 14 guidelines were included in the rapid review and 33 interviews with HCWs were conducted in the qualitative study. As a whole, the guidelines placed greater emphasis on wellbeing at an individual level, while HCWs placed greater emphasis on structural conditions at work, such as understaffing and the invaluable support of the community. This in turn had implications for the focus of wellbeing intervention strategies; staff reported an increased availability of formal mental health support, however, understaffing or clashing schedules prevented them from participating in these activities. Conclusion HCWs expressed wellbeing needs which align with social-ecological conceptualisations of wellbeing related to quality of life. This approach to wellbeing has been highlighted in literature about HCWs support in previous health emergencies, yet it has not been monitored during this pandemic. Wellbeing guidelines should explore staff′s needs and contextual characteristics affecting the implementation of recommendations.

BackgroundThere has been considerable expansion in online postal self-sampling (OPSS) STI services in many parts of the UK, driven by increasing demand on sexual health services and developments in diagnostics and digital health provision. This shift in service delivery has occurred against a backdrop of reduced funding and service fragmentation and the impact is unknown. We explored characteristics of people accessing and using OPSS services for STIs in the UK, the acceptability of these services and their impact on sexual health inequalities.MethodsA scoping review was conducted of studies published in English-language based on pre-agreed inclusion/exclusion criteria, between 01 January 2010 and 07 July 2021. Nine databases were searched, and 23 studies that met the eligibility criteria were included. Studies were appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.ResultsStudy designs were heterogeneous, including quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods analyses. The majority were either evaluating a single-site/self-sampling provider, exploratory or observational and of variable quality. Few studies collected comprehensive user demographic data. Individuals accessing OPSS tended to be asymptomatic, of white ethnicity, women, over 20 years and from less deprived areas. OPSS tended to increase overall STI testing demand and access, although return rates for blood samples were low, as was test positivity. There were varied results on whether services reduced time to treatment. OPSS services were acceptable to the majority of users. Qualitative studies showed the importance of trust, confidentiality, discretion, reliability, convenience and improved patient choice.ConclusionOPSS services appear highly acceptable to users. However, uptake appears to be socially patterned and some groups who bear a disproportionate burden of poor sexual health in the UK are under-represented among users. Current provision of online self-sampling could widen health inequalities, particularly where other options for testing are limited. Work is needed to fully evaluate the impact and cost-effectiveness of OPSS services.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted the delivery of elective surgery in the United Kingdom. The majority of planned surgery was cancelled or postponed in March 2020 for the duration of the first wave of the pandemic. We investigated the experiences of staff responsible for delivering rapid changes to surgical services during the first wave of the pandemic in the United Kingdom, with the aim of developing lessons for future major systems change (MSC). Methods: Using a rapid qualitative study design, we conducted 25 interviews with frontline surgical staff during the first wave of the pandemic. Framework analysis was used to organise and interpret findings. Results: Staff discussed positive and negative experiences of rapid service organisation. Clinician-led decision-making, the flexibility of individual staff and teams, and the opportunity to innovate service design were all seen as positive contributors to success in service adaptation. The negative aspects of rapid change were inconsistent guidance from national government and medical bodies, top-down decisions about when to cancel and restart surgery, the challenges of delivering emergency surgical care safely and the complexity of prioritising surgical cases when services re-started. Conclusion: Success in the rapid reorganisation of elective surgical services can be attributed to the flexibility and adaptability of staff. However, there was an absence of involvement of staff in wider system-level pandemic decision-making and competing guidance from national bodies. Involving staff in decisions about the organisation and delivery of MSC is essential for the sustainability of change processes.