Background This study sought to assess the magnitude of and factors associated with mental health outcomes among frontline health care workers (FHCWs) providing care during the Spring 2020 COVID-19 pandemic surge in New York City. Methods A cross-sectional, survey-based study over 4 weeks during the Spring 2020 pandemic surge was used to assess symptoms of COVID-19-related posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depressive disorder (MDD), and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) in 2,579 FHCWs at the Mount Sinai Hospital. Participants were additionally asked about their occupational and personal exposures to COVID-19. Multivariable logistic regression and relative importance analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with these outcomes. Results A total of 3,360 of 6,026 individuals completed the survey (55.8% participation), with 2,579 (76.8%) analyzed based on endorsing frontline responsibilities and providing information related to the three outcomes. 1,005 (39.0%) met criteria for symptoms of COVID-19-related PTSD, MDD, or GAD. 599 (23.3%) screened positively for PTSD symptoms, 683 (26.6%) for MDD symptoms, and 642 (25.0%) for GAD symptoms. Multivariable analyses revealed that past-year burnout was associated with the highest risk of developing symptoms for COVID-19-related PTSD (odds ratio [OR] = 2.10), MDD (OR = 2.83), and GAD (OR = 2.68). Higher perceived support from hospital leadership was associated with a lowest risk of all outcomes [PTSD (OR = 0.75), MDD (OR = 0.72), and GAD (OR = 0.76). Conclusion In this large sample of FHCWs providing care during the 2020 NYC pandemic surge, 39% experienced symptoms of COVID-19-related PTSD, MDD, and/or GAD and pre-pandemic burnout as well as leadership support were identified as the most highly associated factors. These findings suggest that interventions aimed at reducing burnout and augmenting support from hospital leadership may be appropriate targets to mitigate the risk for developing further psychopathology in this population and others working in the midst of crisis.

Objectives We sought to describe the course and correlates of psychological distress in frontline healthcare workers (FHCWs) during the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City (NYC). Methods A prospective cohort study of FHCWs at the Mount Sinai Hospital was conducted during the initial 2020 surge (T1) and 7 months later (T2). Psychological distress [i.e., positive screen for pandemic-related post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depressive disorder (MDD), and/or generalized anxiety disorder (GAD)], occupational and personal exposures to COVID-19, coping strategies, and psychosocial characteristics were assessed. Four courses of psychological distress response were identified: no/minimal, remitted, persistent, and new-onset. Multinomial logistic regression and relative importance analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with courses of distress. Results Of 786 FHCWs, 126 (16.0%) FHCWs had persistent distress; 150 (19.1%) remitted distress; 35 (4.5%) new-onset distress; and 475 (60.4%) no/minimal distress. Relative to FHCWs with no/minimal distress, those with persistent distress reported greater relationship worries [19.8% relative variance explained (RVE)], pre-pandemic burnout (18.7% RVE), lower dispositional optimism (9.8% RVE), less emotional support (8.6% RVE), and feeling less valued by hospital leadership (8.4% RVE). Relative to FHCWs with remitted symptoms, those with persistent distress reported less emotional support (29.7% RVE), fewer years in practice (28.3% RVE), and psychiatric history (23.6% RVE). Conclusions One-fifth of FHCWs in our study experienced psychological distress 7 months following the COVID-19 surge in NYC. Pandemic-related worries, pre-pandemic burnout, emotional support, and feeling valued by leaders were linked to persistent distress. Implications for prevention, treatment, and organizational efforts to mitigate distress in FHCWs are discussed.

Despite effective antiviral therapy for hepatitis C virus (HCV), people who are incarcerated and those returning to the community face challenges in obtaining HCV treatment. We aimed to explore facilitators and barriers to HCV treatment during and after incarceration. From July–November 2020 and June–July 2021, we conducted 27 semi-structured interviews with residents who were formerly incarcerated in jail or prison. The interviews were audio-recorded and professionally transcribed. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the study sample and analyzed qualitative data thematically using an iterative process. Participants included five women and 22 men who self-identified as White (n = 14), Latinx (n = 8), and Black (n = 5). During incarceration, a key facilitator was having sufficient time to complete HCV treatment, and the corresponding barrier was delaying treatment initiation. After incarceration, a key facilitator was connecting with reentry programs (e.g., halfway house or rehabilitation program) that coordinated the treatment logistics and provided support with culturally sensitive staff. Barriers included a lack of insurance coverage and higher-ranking priorities (e.g., managing more immediate reentry challenges such as other comorbidities, employment, housing, and legal issues), low perceived risk of harm related to HCV, and active substance use. Incarceration and reentry pose distinct facilitators and challenges to accessing HCV treatment. These findings signal the need for interventions to improve engagement in HCV care both during and after incarceration to assist in closing the gap of untreated people living with HCV.

Background There is limited evidence on perioperative outcomes of surgical patients during the COVID-19 pandemic to inform continued operating into the winter period. Methods We retrospectively analysed the rate of 30-day COVID-19 transmission and mortality of all surgical patients in the three hospitals in our trust in the East of England during the first lockdown in March 2020. All patients who underwent a swab were swabbed on or 24 hours prior to admission. Results There were 4,254 patients and an overall 30-day mortality of 0.99%. The excess surgical mortality in our region was 0.29%. There were 39 patients who were COVID-19 positive within 30 days of admission, 12 of whom died. All 12 were emergency admissions with a length of stay longer than 24 hours. There were three deaths among those who underwent day case surgery, one of whom was COVID-19 negative, and the other two were not swabbed but not suspected to have COVID-19. There were two COVID-19 positive elective cases and none in day case elective or emergency surgery. There were no COVID-19 positive deaths in elective or day case surgery. Conclusions There was a low rate of COVID-19 transmission and mortality in elective and day case operations. Our data have allowed us to guide patients in the consent process and provided the evidence base to restart elective and day case operating with precautions and regular review. A number of regions will be similarly affected and should perform a review of their data for the winter period and beyond.