Job strain and psychological impact of COVID-19 in ICU caregivers during pandemic period

Caillet, Anaëlle; Conejero, Ismaël; Allaouchiche, Bernard

doi:10.1016/j.accpm.2021.100850

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To prevent BOS, several solutions are currently explored. It is necessary to identify profiles at-risk by using all the risk factors identified in the literature [ 7 , 9 , 25 ]. Then, it is necessary to propose to the whole team psychological care centered on the management of emotions, stress, reflective practices and relaxation exercises [ 16 , 17 , 19 , 24 , 25 , 26 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is necessary to identify profiles at-risk by using all the risk factors identified in the literature [ 7 , 9 , 25 ]. Then, it is necessary to propose to the whole team psychological care centered on the management of emotions, stress, reflective practices and relaxation exercises [ 16 , 17 , 19 , 24 , 25 , 26 ]. The optimization of communication is also essential with debriefings in order to encourage exchanges with the physicians and to optimize communication with the management team [ 16 , 17 , 24 , 26 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Burnout Syndrome During COVID-19 Second Wave on ICU Caregivers

Caillet

Fillon

Plou

et al. 2022

The Journal of Critical Care Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The main objective of this article is to evaluate the prevalence of burnout syndrome (BOS) among the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) healthcare workers. Methods The COVID-impact study is a study conducted in 6 French intensive care units. Five units admitting COVID patient and one that doesn’t admit COVID patients. The survey was conducted between October 20th and November 20th, 2020, during the second wave in France. A total of 208 professionals responded (90% response rate). The Maslach Burnout Inventory scale, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Impact of Event Revisited Scale were used to study the psychological impact of the COVID-19 Every intensive care unit worker. Results The cohort includes 208 professionals, 52.4% are caregivers. Almost 20% of the respondents suffered from severe BOS. The professionals who are particularly affected by BOS are women, engaged people, nurses or reinforcement, not coming willingly to the intensive care unit and professionals with psychological disorders since COVID-19, those who are afraid of being infected, and people with anxiety, depression or post-traumatic stress disorder. Independent risk factors isolated were being engaged and being a reinforcement. Being a volunteer to come to work in ICU is protective. 19.7% of the team suffered from severe BOS during the COVID-19 pandemic in our ICU. The independent risk factors for BOS are: being engaged (OR = 3.61 (95% CI, 1.44; 9.09), don’t working in ICU when it’s not COVID-19 pandemic (reinforcement) (OR = 37.71 (95% CI, 3.13; 454.35), being a volunteer (OR = 0.10 (95% CI, 0.02; 0.46). Conclusion Our study demonstrates the value of assessing burnout in health care teams. Prevention could be achieved by training personnel to form a health reserve in the event of a pandemic.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Burnout Syndrome During COVID-19 Second Wave on ICU Caregivers

Caillet

Fillon

Plou

et al. 2022

The Journal of Critical Care Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…During the pandemic, healthcare workers faced time-consuming protocols, which included the need to wear personal protective equipment as well as dealing with the management of a high number of patients requiring invasive ventilation, hemodynamic, and renal support ( 18 , 19 ). The pandemic also negatively impacted the mental health of the healthcare professionals mainly owing to work overload ( 20 , 21 ). It is therefore possible that the prevention of VAP, which relies mainly on a bundle of care performed by the ICU nurses, was suboptimal during the pandemic owing to the work overload and understaffing ( 22 , 23 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attributable Mortality of Ventilator-associated Pneumonia Among Patients with COVID-19

Vacheron

Lepape

Savey

et al. 2022

Am J Respir Crit Care Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rationale Patients with a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are at higher risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and may have an increased attributable mortality (increased or decreased risk of death if VAP occurs in a patient) and attributable fraction (proportion of deaths that are attributable to an exposure) of VAP-related mortality compared with subjects without coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Objectives Estimation of the attributable mortality of the VAP among patients with COVID-19. Methods Using the REA-REZO surveillance network, three groups of adult medical ICU patients were computed: control group (patients admitted between 2016 and 2019; prepandemic patients), pandemic COVID-19 group (PandeCOV + ), and pandemic non–COVID-19 group (PandeCOV − ) admitted during 2020. The primary outcome was the estimation of attributable mortality and attributable fraction related to VAP in these patients. Using multistate modeling with causal inference, the outcomes related to VAP were also evaluated. Measurements and Main Results A total of 64,816 patients were included in the control group, 7,442 in the PandeCOV − group, and 1,687 in the PandeCOV + group. The incidence of VAP was 14.2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.9 to 14.6), 18.3 (95% CI, 17.3 to 19.4), and 31.9 (95% CI, 29.8 to 34.2) per 1,000 ventilation-days in each group, respectively. Attributable mortality at 90 days was 3.15% (95%, CI, 2.04% to 3.43%), 2.91% (95% CI, −0.21% to 5.02%), and 8.13% (95% CI, 3.54% to 12.24%), and attributable fraction of mortality at 90 days was 1.22% (95% CI, 0.83 to 1.63), 1.42% (95% CI, −0.11% to 2.61%), and 9.17% (95% CI, 3.54% to 12.24%) for the control, PandeCOV − , and PandeCOV + groups, respectively. Except for the higher risk of developing VAP, the PandeCOV − group shared similar VAP characteristics with the control group. PandeCOV + patients were at lower risk of death without VAP (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.74) than the control group. Conclusions VAP-attributable mortality was higher for patients with COVID-19, with more than 9% of the overall mortality related to VAP.

show abstract