ObjectiveTo determine burn-out levels and associated factors among healthcare personnel working in a tertiary hospital of a highly burdened area of north-east Italy during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignObservational study conducted from 21 April to 6 May 2020 using a web-based questionnaire.SettingResearch conducted in the Verona University Hospital (Veneto, Italy).ParticipantsOut of 2195 eligible participants, 1961 healthcare workers with the full range of professional profiles (89.3%) completed the survey.Primary outcome measureLevels of burn-out, assessed by the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with burn-out in each MBI-GS dimension (emotional exhaustion, EX; professional efficacy, EF; cynicism, CY).ResultsOverall, 38.3% displayed high EX, 46.5% low EF and 26.5% high CY. Burn-out was frequent among staff working in intensive care units (EX 57.0%; EF 47.8%; CY 40.1%), and among residents (EX 34.9%; EF 63.9%; CY 33.4%) and nurses (EX 49.2%; EF 46.9%; CY 29.7%). Being a resident increased the risk of burn-out (by nearly 2.5 times) in all the three MBI subscales and being a nurse increased the risk of burn-out in the EX dimension in comparison to physicians. Healthcare staff directly engaged with patients with COVID-19 showed more EX and CY than those working in non-COVID wards. Finally, the risk of burn-out was higher in staff showing pre-existing psychological problems, in those having experienced a COVID-related traumatic event and in those having experienced interpersonal avoidance in the workplace and personal life.ConclusionsBurn-out represents a great concern for healthcare staff working in a large tertiary hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact is more burdensome for front-line junior physicians. This study underlines the need to carefully address psychological well-being of healthcare workers to prevent the increase of burn-out in the event of a new COVID-19 healthcare emergency.

Aims Healthcare workers exposed to coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) patients could be psychologically distressed. This study aims to assess the magnitude of psychological distress and associated factors among hospital staff during the COVID-19 pandemic in a large tertiary hospital located in north-east Italy. Methods All healthcare and administrative staff working in the Verona University Hospital (Veneto, Italy) during the COVID-19 pandemic were asked to complete a web-based survey from 21 April to 6 May 2020. Symptoms of post-traumatic distress, anxiety and depression were assessed, respectively, using the Impact of Event Scale (IES-R), the Self-rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Personal socio-demographic information and job characteristics were also collected, including gender, age, living condition, having pre-existing psychological problems, occupation, length of working experience, hospital unit (ICUs and sub-intensive COVID-19 units vs. non-COVID-19 units). A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with each of the three mental health outcomes. Results A total of 2195 healthcare workers (36.9% of the overall hospital staff) participated in the study. Of the participants, 35.7% were nurses, 24.3% other healthcare staff, 16.4% residents, 13.9% physicians and 9.7% administrative staff. Nine per cent of healthcare staff worked in ICUs, 8% in sub-intensive COVID-19 units and 7.6% in other front-line services, while the remaining staff worked in hospital units not directly engaged with COVID-19 patients. Overall, 63.2% of participants reported COVID-related traumatic experiences at work and 53.8% (95% CI 51.0%–56.6%) showed symptoms of post-traumatic distress; moreover, 50.1% (95% CI 47.9%–52.3%) showed symptoms of clinically relevant anxiety and 26.6% (95% CI 24.7%–28.5%) symptoms of at least moderate depression. Multivariable logistic regressions showed that women, nurses, healthcare workers directly engaged with COVID-19 patients and those with pre-existing psychological problems were at increased risk of psychopathological consequences of the pandemic. Conclusions The psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare staff working in a highly burdened geographical of north-east Italy is relevant and to some extent greater than that reported in China. The study provides solid grounds to elaborate and implement interventions pertaining to psychology and occupational health.

Given the negative impact of adverse events on the wellbeing of healthcare providers, easy access to psychological support is crucial. We aimed to describe the types of support resources available in healthcare organizations, their benefits for second victims, peer supporters’ experiences, and implementation challenges. We also explored how these resources incorporate aspects of Safety I and Safety II. We searched six databases up to 19 December 2019 and additional literature, including weekly search alerts until 21 January 2021. Two reviewers independently performed all methodological steps (search, selection, quality assessment, data extraction, formal narrative synthesis). The 16 included studies described 12 second victim support resources, implemented between 2006 and 2017. Preliminary data indicated beneficial effects not only for the affected staff but also for the peer responders who considered their role to be challenging but gratifying. Challenges during program implementation included persistent blame culture, limited awareness of program availability, and lack of financial resources. Common goals of the support programs (e.g., fostering coping strategies, promoting individual resilience) are consistent with Safety II and may promote system resilience. Investing in second victim support structures should be a top priority for healthcare institutions adopting a systemic approach to safety and striving for just culture.

Surgery is the traditional treatment for juxta-anastomotic stenoses in forearm arteriovenous fistulas (AVF), but percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) is a suitable alternative. No prospective comparative trials between the two have been reported to date, however. A retrospective analysis of prospectively, concurrently collected data was performed to compare the outcome and cost of surgery and PTA in the preemptive repair of juxta-anastomotic stenosis in lower forearm AVF. Sixty-four AVF with >50% venous juxta-anastomotic stenosis were considered: 21 were treated surgically (11 proximal neo-anastomosis and 10 polytetrafluoroethylene interposition graft) and 43 by PTA. After treatment, AVF were monitored by quarterly ultrasound dilution access blood flow measurement. End points were restenosis and procedure failure rate (re-intervention by another technique or access loss), and determinants were analyzed using Cox hazard model. Initial procedural success was 100% for surgery and 95% for PTA (P ‫؍‬ 0.539). Restenosis rate was 0.168 and 0.519 events/AVF-year for surgery and PTA, respectively (P ‫؍‬ 0.009). The type of procedure was the only variable that was significantly associated with restenosis, the adjusted relative risk being 2.77-fold higher (95% confidence interval 1.07 to 7.17; P ‫؍‬ 0.036) after PTA than surgery. The procedure failure rate was 0.110 and 0.097 events/AVF-year for surgery and PTA, respectively (P ‫؍‬ 0.736). The cost profile also was similar for the two procedures. This prospective comparative study confirms a higher restenosis rate after PTA than surgery, but with strict surveillance for restenosis, the two procedures show similar assisted primary patency and cost, suggesting that they should be considered equally valid, complementary alternatives in the preemptive treatment of juxtaanastomotic stenosis in forearm AVF.

These findings challenge the belief that unidirectional systems always provide acceptable airborne bacterial counts.