Search

Background: Older people living in care homes are at high risk of poor health outcomes and mortality if they contract coronavirus disease 2019. Protective measures include social distancing and isolation, although implementation is challenging., Objectives: To explore the real-life experiences of social distancing and isolation in care homes for older people, and to develop a toolkit of guidance and resources., Design: A mixed-methods, phased design., Setting: Six care homes in England caring for older adults., Participants: Care home staff ( n = 31), residents ( n = 17), family members ( n = 17), senior health and care leaders ( n = 13)., Methods: A rapid review to assess the social distancing and isolation measures used by care homes to control the transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 and other infectious diseases (phase 1), in-depth case studies of six care homes, involving remote individual interviews with staff, residents and families, collection of policies, protocols and routinely collected care home data, remote focus groups with senior health and care leaders (phase 2) and stakeholder workshops to co-design the toolkit (phase 3). Interview and focus group data and care home documents were analysed using thematic analysis and care home data using descriptive statistics., Results: The rapid review of 103 records demonstrated limited empirical evidence and the limited nature of policy documentation around social distancing and isolation measures in care homes. The case studies found that social distancing and isolation measures presented moral dilemmas for staff and often were difficult, and sometimes impossible to implement. Social distancing and isolation measures made care homes feel like an institution and denied residents, staff and families of physical touch and other forms of non-verbal communication. This was particularly important for residents with cognitive impairment. Care homes developed new visiting modalities to work around social distancing measures. Residents and families valued the work of care homes to keep residents safe and support remote communication. Social distancing, isolation and related restrictions negatively impacted on residents' physical, psychological, social and cognitive well-being. There were feelings of powerlessness for families whose loved ones had moved into the care home during the pandemic. It was challenging for care homes to capture frequent updates in policy and guidance. Senior health and care leaders shared that the care home sector felt isolated from the National Health Service, communication from government was described as chaotic, and trauma was inflicted on care home staff, residents, families and friends. These multiple data sources have informed the co-design of a toolkit to care for residents, families, friends and care home staff., Limitations: The review included papers published in English language only. The six care homes had a Care Quality Commission rating of either 'good' or 'outstanding'. There was a lack of ethnic diversity in resident and family participants., Conclusions: Care homes implemented innovative approaches to social distancing and isolation with varying degrees of success. A legacy of learning can help rebuild trust at multiple levels and address trauma-informed care for residents, families, friends and staff. Future work can include evaluation of the toolkit, research to develop a trauma-informed approach to caring for the care home sector and co-designing and evaluating an intervention to enable residents with different needs to transition to living well in a care home., Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR132541) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research ; Vol. 12, No. 45. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to examine post COVID-19 syndrome (PCS) among healthcare workers (HCWs) in England and explore risk factors for the condition., Methods: Data were collected by National Health Service (NHS) CHECK, a longitudinal study exploring HCWs' mental and physical well-being during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. NHS CHECK collected data at four timepoints: the baseline survey between April 2020 and January 2021, and then three follow-up surveys at approximately 6, 12 and 32 months post baseline. PCS data were collected at 12 and 32 months, while risk factor data were from baseline. HCWs were asked what COVID-19 symptoms they experienced and for how long and were classified as having PCS if they had any symptom for ≥12 weeks. Multilevel regressions were used to examine risk factors for PCS., Results: This study included 5248 HCWs. While 33.6% (n=1730) reported prolonged COVID-19 symptoms consistent with PCS, only 7.4% (n=385) reported a formal diagnosis of PCS. Fatigue, difficult concentrating, insomnia and anxiety or depression were the most common PCS symptoms. Baseline risk factors for reporting PCS included screening for common mental disorders, direct contact with COVID-19 patients, pre-existing respiratory illnesses, female sex and older age., Conclusions: While a third of HCWs reported prolonged COVID-19 symptoms consistent with PCS, a smaller percentage reported a formal diagnosis of the condition. We replicate findings that direct contact with COVID-19 patients, older age, female sex, pre-existing respiratory illness and symptoms of common mental disorders are associated with increased risk of PCS., Competing Interests: Competing interests: This report is independent research supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) North Thames and the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emergency Preparedness and Response, a partnership between the UK Health Security Agency, King’s College London and the University of East Anglia. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR, UKHSA or the Department of Health and Social Care. For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. SAMS is supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research, NIHR Advanced Fellowship, Dr SAMS, NIHR300592. SAMS is also an independent scientific member of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, the Department of Health and Social Care, or the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. SW is a member of the NHS England board., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Aim: To evaluate the impact of usual care plus a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care only for patients in hospital with COVID-19 on patient experience, care quality, functional ability, treatment outcomes, nurses' moral distress, patient health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness., Design: Parallel two-arm, cluster-level randomized controlled trial., Methods: Between 18th January and 20th December 2021, we recruited (i) adults aged 18 years and over with COVID-19, excluding those invasively ventilated, admitted for at least three days or nights in UK Hospital Trusts; (ii) nurses caring for them. We randomly assigned hospitals to use a fundamental nursing care guideline and usual care or usual care only. Our patient-reported co-primary outcomes were the Relational Aspects of Care Questionnaire and four scales from the Quality from the Patient Perspective Questionnaire. We undertook intention-to-treat analyses., Results: We randomized 15 clusters and recruited 581 patient and 418 nurse participants. Primary outcome data were available for 570-572 (98.1%-98.5%) patient participants in 14 clusters. We found no evidence of between-group differences on any patient, nurse or economic outcomes. We found between-group differences over time, in favour of the intervention, for three of our five co-primary outcomes, and a significant interaction on one primary patient outcome for ethnicity (white British vs. other) and allocated group in favour of the intervention for the 'other' ethnicity subgroup., Conclusion: We did not detect an overall difference in patient experience for a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care. We have indications the guideline may have aided sustaining good practice over time and had a more positive impact on non-white British patients' experience of care., Implications for the Profession And/or Patient Care: We cannot recommend the wholescale implementation of our guideline into routine nursing practice. Further intervention development, feasibility, pilot and evaluation studies are required., Impact: Fundamental nursing care drives patient experience but is severely impacted in pandemics. Our guideline was not superior to usual care, albeit it may sustain good practice and have a positive impact on non-white British patients' experience of care., Reporting Method: CONSORT and CONSERVE., Patient or Public Contribution: Patients with experience of hospitalization with COVID-19 were involved in guideline development and writing, trial management and interpretation of findings., (© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Advanced Nursing published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Whether implicit or explicit, professional judgement is a central component of the many nurse staffing systems implemented in high-income countries to inform workforce planning and staff deployment. Whilst a substantial body of research has evaluated the technical and operational elements of nurse staffing systems, no studies have systematically examined the role of professional judgement and its contribution to decision-making., Objective: To explore nurses' use of professional judgement in nurse staffing systems in England and Wales., Methods: A cross-case comparative design centred on adult in-patient services in three University Health Boards in Wales and three National Health Service Trusts in England. Data generation was undertaken between January 2021 and March 2023 through stakeholder interviews, observations of staffing meetings, and analysis of documents and artefacts. Observations were undertaken in clinical areas but limited to three cases by COVID-19 restrictions. Analysis was informed by translational mobilisation theory., Findings: Two kinds of professional judgement were deployed in the nurse staffing systems: the judgement of clinical nurses and the judgement of senior nurse managers. The research highlighted the reflexive relationship between professional judgement and data, and the circumstances in which organisations placed trust in people and when they placed trust in numbers. Nurses' professional judgement was central to the generation of data, its interpretation and contextualisation. Healthcare organisations relied on the professional judgements of clinical nurses and senior nurse managers in making operational decisions to mitigate risk, where real-world understanding of the status of the organisation was privileged over formal data. Professional judgement had attenuated authority for the purposes of workforce planning, where data was a master actor. Nurses expressed concerns that strategic decision-making prioritised safety and efficiency, and formal measurement systems did not capture important aspects of care quality or staff wellbeing, which made it difficult to articulate their professional judgement., Conclusions: The implementation of staffing systems is resource intensive. Given limited evidence on which to recommend any specific methodology, the priority for future research is to optimise existing systems. If nurses are to deploy their professional judgement to proactively influence the conditions for care, as well as responding to the challenges of risk mitigation, there is a need for robust systems of nursing measurement aligned with agreed standards of care and a vocabulary through which these judgements can be articulated., Tweetable Abstract: Health systems depend on nurses' professional judgement for operational staffing decisions, but data is privileged over professional judgement for workforce planning., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Crown Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Staff in the National Health Service (NHS) are under considerable strain, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic; whilst NHS Trusts provide a variety of health and wellbeing support services, there has been little research investigating staff perceptions of these services. We interviewed 48 healthcare workers from 18 NHS Trusts in England about their experiences of workplace health and wellbeing support during the pandemic. Reflexive thematic analysis identified that perceived stigma around help-seeking, and staffing shortages due to wider socio-political contexts such as austerity, were barriers to using support services. Visible, caring leadership at all levels (CEO to line managers), peer support, easily accessible services, and clear communication about support offers were enablers. Our evidence suggests Trusts should have active strategies to improve help-seeking, such as manager training and peer support facilitated by building in time for this during working hours, but this will require long-term strategic planning to address workforce shortages.

Background: Pandemics such as COVID-19 pose threats to the physical safety of healthcare workers and students. They can have traumatic experiences affecting their personal and professional life. Increasing rates of burnout, substance abuse, depression, and suicide among healthcare workers have already been identified, thus making mental health and psychological wellbeing of the healthcare workers a major issue. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize the characteristics of emotional support programs and interventions targeted to healthcare workers and students since the onset of COVID-19 and other SARS-CoV pandemics and to describe the effectiveness and experiences of these programs., Method: This was a mixed method systematic review. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and the review was registered on PROSPERO [CRD42021262837]. Searches were conducted using Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases. The COVIDENCE systematic review management system was used for data selection and extraction by two independent reviewers. The JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute) critical appraisal tools were used to assess the quality of selected studies by two additional reviewers. Finally, data extraction and narrative analysis were conducted., Results: The search retrieved 3161 results including 1061 duplicates. After screening, a total of 19 articles were included in this review. Participants in studies were nurses, physicians, other hospital staff, and undergraduate medical students mostly working on the front-line with COVID-19 patients. Publications included RCTs (n = 4), quasi-experimental studies (n = 2), cross-sectional studies (n = 6), qualitative interview studies (n = 3), and systematic reviews (n = 4). Most (63.4%) of the interventions used online or digital solutions. Interventions mostly showed good effectiveness (support-seeking, positive emotions, reduction of distress symptoms etc.) and acceptance and were experienced as helpful, but there were some conflicting results., Conclusion: Healthcare organizations have developed support strategies focusing on providing emotional support for these healthcare workers and students, but it is difficult to conclude whether one program offers distinct benefit compared to the others. More research is needed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of emotional support interventions for health workers., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, concern has been raised about suicide risk among healthcare workers (HCWs). We investigated the incidence risk and prevalence of suicidal thoughts and behaviour (STB), and their relationship with occupational risk factors, among National Health Service HCWs in England between April 2020 and August 2021., Methods: In this longitudinal study, we analysed online survey data completed by 22,501 HCWs from 17 NHS Trusts at baseline (Time 1) and six months (Time 2). The primary outcome measures were suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and non-suicidal self-injury. We used logistic regression to investigate the relationship between these outcomes and demographic characteristics and occupational factors. Results were stratified by occupational role (clinical/non-clinical)., Results: Time 1 and Time 2 surveys were completed by 12,514 and 7,160 HCWs, respectively. At baseline, 10.8% (95% CI = 10.1%, 11.6%) of participants reported having experienced suicidal thoughts in the previous two months, whilst 2.1% (95% CI = 1.8%, 2.5%) of participants reported having attempted suicide over the same period. Among HCWs who had not experienced suicidal thoughts at baseline (and who completed the Time 2 survey), 11.3% (95%CI = 10.4%, 12.3%) reported such thoughts six months later. Six months after baseline, 3.9% (95% CI = 3.4%, 4.4%) of HCWs reported attempting suicide for the first time. Exposure to potentially morally injurious events, lack of confidence about raising safety concerns and these concerns being addressed, feeling unsupported by managers, and providing a reduced standard of care were all associated with increased suicidal ideation among HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. At six months, among clinicians, a lack of confidence about safety concerns being addressed, independently predicted suicidal ideation., Conclusion: Suicidal thoughts and behaviour among healthcare workers could be reduced by improving managerial support and enhancing the ability of staff to raise safety concerns., Competing Interests: MH, RR, and SW are senior NIHR Investigators. SW has received speaker fees from Swiss Re for two webinars on the epidemiological impact of COVID 19 pandemic on mental health. SW is a Non Executive Director of NHS-England. RR reports grants from DHSC/UKRI/ESRC COVID-19 Rapid Response Call, grants from Rosetrees Trust, grants from King’s Together rapid response call, grants from UCL (Wellcome Trust) rapid response call, during the conduct of the study; & grants from NIHR outside the submitted work MH reports grants from DHSC/UKRI/ESRC COVID-19 Rapid Response Call, grants from Rosetrees Trust, grants from King’s Together rapid response call, grants from UCL Partners rapid response call, during the conduct of the study; grants from Innovative Medicines Initiative and EFPIA, RADAR-CNS consortium, grants from MRC, grants from NIHR, outside the submitted work. SS reports grants from UKRI/ESRC/DHSC, grants from UCL, grants from UKRI/MRC/DHSC, grants from Rosetrees Trust, grants from King’s Together Fund, and an NIHR Advanced Fellowship [ref: NIHR 300592] during the conduct of the study. NG reports a potential COI with NHSEI, during the conduct of the study; he is the managing director of March on Stress Ltd which has provided training for a number of NHS organisations. NG is not aware if the company has delivered training to any of the participating trusts, as he is not involved in commissioning specific pieces of work. DL is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ARC North Thames. PM reports grants from NIHR and the Cassell Hospital Charitable Trust outside the submitted work. PM is part-funded by the NIHR ARC West. PP and PM report a grant from Bristol and Weston Hospitals Charity outside the submitted work. PP was funded by the Medical Research Council Addiction Research Clinical Training programme (MR/N00616X/1). Other authors report no competing interests. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials., (Copyright: © 2023 Padmanathan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Aims: To identify strategies used by registered nurses and non-registered nursing care staff in overcoming barriers when providing fundamental nursing care for non-invasively ventilated inpatients with COVID-19., Design: Online survey with open-ended questions to collect qualitative data., Methods: In August 2020, we asked UK-based nursing staff to describe any strategies they employed to overcome barriers to delivering care in 15 fundamental nursing care categories when providing care to non-invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19. We analysed data using Framework Analysis., Results: A total of 1062 nurses consented to participate in our survey. We derived four themes. 1) Communication behaviours included adapting verbal and non-verbal communication with patients, using information technology to enable patients' significant others to communicate with staff and patients, and establishing clear information-sharing methods with other staff. 2) Organizing care required clustering interventions, carefully managing supplies, encouraging patient self-care and using 'runners' and interdisciplinary input. 3) Addressing patients' well-being and values required spending time with patients, acting in loco familiae, providing access to psychological and spiritual support, obtaining information about patients' wishes early on and providing privacy and comforting/meaningful items. 4) Management and leadership behaviours included training, timely provision of pandemic information, psychological support, team huddles and facilitating regular breaks., Conclusions: Our respondents identified multiple strategies in four main areas of clinical practice. Management and leadership are crucial to both fundamental care delivery and the well-being of nurses during pandemics. Grouping strategies into these areas of action may assist nurses and leaders to prepare for pandemic nursing., Impact: As these strategies are unlikely to be exclusive to the COVID-19 pandemic, their global dissemination may improve patient experience and help nurses deliver fundamental care when planning pandemic nursing. However, their effectiveness is unknown. Therefore, we are currently evaluating these strategies in a cluster randomized controlled trial., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Advanced Nursing published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: COVID-19-related inequities experienced by racial and ethnic minority groups including healthcare professionals mirror wider health inequities, which risk being perpetuated by lower uptake of vaccination. We aim to better understand lower uptake among racial and ethnic minority staff groups to inform initiatives to enhance uptake., Design: Twenty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted (October 2020-January 2021) with UK-based healthcare staff. Data were inductively and thematically analysed., Results: Vaccine decision-making processes were underpinned by an overarching theme, 'weighing up risks of harm against potential benefits to self and others'. Sub-themes included 'fear of harm', 'moral/ethical objections', 'potential benefits to self and others', 'information and misinformation', and 'institutional or workplace pressure'. We identified ways in which these were weighted more heavily towards vaccine hesitancy for racial and ethnic minority staff groups influenced by perceptions about institutional and structural discrimination. This included suspicions and fear around institutional pressure to be vaccinated, racial injustices in vaccine development and testing, religious or ethical concerns, and legitimacy and accessibility of vaccine messaging and communication., Conclusions: Drawing on a critical race perspective, we conclude that acknowledging historical and contemporary abuses of power is essential to avoid perpetuating and aggravating mistrust by de-contextualising hesitancy from the social processes affecting hesitancy, undermining efforts to increase vaccine uptake.

Background: In 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic, England's Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) released a White Paper outlining proposed legislative reform of the National Health Service (NHS). Key to the proposals is the shift from relationships between providers based on competition, to cooperation, as the central driver of improved performance and quality. Against this background we explore potential regulatory barriers and enablers to collaboration identified by key NHS stakeholders and assess whether the proposed policy changes are likely to deliver the desired improvement in collaborative relationships, in the context of challenges experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: We conducted 32 semi-structured interviews with 30 key stakeholders, taking place during the COVID-19 pandemic from Jan 2020 to May 2021. Participants were selected for their expertise regarding collaboration and were recruited purposively. Interviews were conducted online with the use of video conferencing software. The interviews were thematically analysed to identify themes. Proposals contained in the DHSC White Paper helped to structure the thematic analysis, interpretation, and reporting of the results., Results: Requirements to compete to provide services, regulatory ability to block collaborative arrangements, lack of collaboration between providers and Clinical Commissioning Groups, and current lack of data sharing were found to hamper collaborative efforts. These issues often negatively affected collaborative relations by increasing bureaucracy and prompted leaders to attempt to avoid future collaborations. Other barriers included opaque accountability arrangements, and erosion of trust in regulators. The COVID-19 pandemic was found to foster collaboration between organisations, but some changes mandated by the new legislation may stifle further collaboration., Conclusions: Many of the proposed legislative changes in the White Paper would help to remove existing barriers to service integration and collaboration identified by stakeholders. However, the proposed shift in the concentration of power from NHS England to the DHSC may exacerbate historically low levels of trust between providers and regulators. Many of the proposed changes fail to address endemic NHS policy issues such as chronic understaffing. Further dialogue is needed at all levels of the health and social care system to ensure future legislative changes meet the needs of all stakeholders., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Older people living in care homes are at high risk of poor health outcomes and mortality if they contract COVID-19 or other infectious diseases. Measures used to protect residents include social distancing and isolation, although implementation is challenging. This review aimed to assess the social distancing and isolation strategies used by care homes to prevent and control the transmission of COVID-19 and other infectious diseases. Seven electronic databases were searched: Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, HMIC, Social Care Online, and Web of Science Core Collection. Grey literature was searched using MedRxiv, PDQ-Evidence, NICE Evidence Search, LTCCovid19.org and TRIP. Extracted data were synthesised using narrative synthesis and tabulation. 103 papers were included (10 empirical studies, seven literature reviews, and 86 policy documents). Strategies used to prevent and control the transmission of COVID-19 and other infectious diseases included social distancing and isolation of residents and staff, zoning and cohorting of residents, restriction of resident movement/activities, restriction of visitors and restriction of staff working patterns. This review demonstrates a lack of empirical evidence and the limited nature of policy documentation around social distancing and isolation measures in care homes. Evaluative research on these interventions is needed urgently, focusing on the well-being of all residents, particularly those with hearing, vision or cognitive impairments.

Background: The specific challenges experienced by the nursing and midwifery workforce in previous pandemics have exacerbated pre-existing professional and personal challenges, and triggered new issues. We aimed to determine the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the UK nursing and midwifery workforce and identify potential factors associated with signs of post-traumatic stress disorder., Methods: A United Kingdom national online survey was conducted at three time-points during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic between April and August 2020 (T1 and T2 during initial wave; T3 at three-months following the first wave). All members of the UK registered and unregistered nursing and midwifery workforce were eligible to participate. The survey was promoted via social media and through organisational email and newsletters. The primary outcome was an Impact of Events Scale-Revised score indicative of a post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis (defined using the cut-off score ≥33). Multivariable logistic regression modelling was used to assess the association between explanatory variables and post-traumatic stress disorder., Results: We received 7840 eligible responses (T1- 2040; T2- 3638; T3- 2162). Overall, 91.6% participants were female, 77.2% were adult registered nurses, and 28.7% were redeployed during the pandemic. An Impact of Events Scale-Revised score ≥33 (probable post-traumatic stress disorder) was observed in 44.6%, 37.1%, and 29.3% participants at T1, T2, and T3 respectively. At all three time-points, both personal and workplace factors were associated with probable post-traumatic stress disorder, although some specific associations changed over the course of the pandemic. Increased age was associated with reduced probable post-traumatic stress disorder at T1 and T2 (e.g. 41-50 years at T1 odds ratio (OR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42-0.86), but not at T3. Similarly, redeployment with inadequate/ no training was associated with increased probable post-traumatic stress disorder at T1 and T2, but not at T3 (T1 OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.06-1.77; T3 OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.89-1.55). A lack of confidence in infection prevention and control training was associated with increased probable post-traumatic stress disorder at all three time-points (e.g. T1 OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.11-1.97)., Conclusion: A negative psychological impact was evident 3-months following the first wave of the pandemic. Both personal and workplace are associated with adverse psychological effects linked to the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings will inform how healthcare organisations should respond to staff wellbeing needs both during the current pandemic, and in planning for future pandemics., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: The early stages of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic prompted unprecedented displays of gratitude to healthcare workers. In the United Kingdom, gratitude was a hotly debated topic in public discourse, catalysing compelling displays of civic togetherness but also attracting criticism for being an unhelpful distraction that authorized unrealistic expectations of healthcare workers. Expressions of thanks tend to be neglected as drivers of transformation, and yet, they are important indicators of qualities to which people attach significance., Objective: This study aimed to use discursive analysis to explore how the National Health Service (NHS) was constructed in attention-attracting tweets that expressed and/or discussed gratitude to the NHS., Methods: Having determined that Twitter was the most active site for traffic relating to gratitude and the NHS, we established a corpus of 834 most-liked tweets, purposively sampled from Twitter searches on a day-by-day basis over the period of the first lockdown in the United Kingdom (22 March-28 May 2020). We developed a typology for tweets engaging with gratitude as well as analysing what the NHS was thanked for., Results: Our analysis, informed by a discursive psychology approach, found that the meanings attributed to gratitude were highly mobile and there were distinct patterns of activity. The NHS was predominantly-and sometimes idealistically-thanked for working, effort, saving and caring. Displays of gratitude were seen as incommensurable with failures of responsibility. The clap-for-carers campaign was a potent driver of affect, especially in the early parts of the lockdown., Conclusions: The social value of gratitude is implicated in the re-evaluation of the risks and rewards of healthcare and social care work in the wake of the pandemic. We caution against cynicism about gratitude overshadowing the well-being effects that expressing and receiving gratitude can engender, particularly given concerns over the detrimental effects of the pandemic on mental health., Public Contribution: This study involves the analysis of data provided by the public and published on social media., (© 2021 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: This study reports preliminary findings on the prevalence of, and factors associated with, mental health and well-being outcomes of healthcare workers during the early months (April-June) of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK., Methods: Preliminary cross-sectional data were analysed from a cohort study (n=4378). Clinical and non-clinical staff of three London-based NHS Trusts, including acute and mental health Trusts, took part in an online baseline survey. The primary outcome measure used is the presence of probable common mental disorders (CMDs), measured by the General Health Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes are probable anxiety (seven-item Generalised Anxiety Disorder), depression (nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (six-item Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder checklist), suicidal ideation (Clinical Interview Schedule) and alcohol use (Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test). Moral injury is measured using the Moray Injury Event Scale., Results: Analyses showed substantial levels of probable CMDs (58.9%, 95% CI 58.1 to 60.8) and of PTSD (30.2%, 95% CI 28.1 to 32.5) with lower levels of depression (27.3%, 95% CI 25.3 to 29.4), anxiety (23.2%, 95% CI 21.3 to 25.3) and alcohol misuse (10.5%, 95% CI 9.2 to 11.9). Women, younger staff and nurses tended to have poorer outcomes than other staff, except for alcohol misuse. Higher reported exposure to moral injury (distress resulting from violation of one's moral code) was strongly associated with increased levels of probable CMDs, anxiety, depression, PTSD symptoms and alcohol misuse., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that mental health support for healthcare workers should consider those demographics and occupations at highest risk. Rigorous longitudinal data are needed in order to respond to the potential long-term mental health impacts of the pandemic., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RoR reports grants from DHSC/UKRI/ESRC COVID-19 Rapid Response Call, grants from Rosetrees Trust, grants from King’s Together rapid response call, grants from UCL (Wellcome Trust) rapid response call, during the conduct of the study; grants from Innovative Medicines Initiative and EFPIA, RADAR-CNS consortium, grants from MRC, grants from NIHR, outside the submitted work. SH reports grants from NIHR, grants from Wellcome Trust, grants from ESRC, grants from Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Charity, grants from MRC, grants from UKRI, outside the submitted work; and a member of the following advisory groups: The Health Foundation – COVID-19 Research Programme Panel, NHS England and NHS Improvement – Patient and Carers Race Equalities Framework (PCREF) Steering Group, NHS England and NHS Improvement – Advancing Mental Health Equalities Taskforce, Health Education England – Mental Health Workforce Equalities Subgroup, Maudsley Learning – Maudsley Learning Advisory Board, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (SLaM) – Independent Advisory Groups, the SLaM Partnership Group, Lambeth Public Health – Serious Youth Violence Public Health Task and Finish Group, NHS England – Workforce Race Equality Standard Advisory Group, Thrive London – Thrive London Advisory Board, Black Thrive – Black Thrive Advisory Board. Commissions: Welsh Government’s Race Equality Plan; contribution to the evidence review for Health and Social Care and Employment and Income policy areas. SAMS reports grants from UKRI/ESRC/DHSC, grants from UCL, grants from UKRI/MRC/DHSC, grants from Rosetrees Trust, grants from King’s Together Fund, during the conduct of the study. NG reports a potential COI with NHSEI, during the conduct of the study; and the managing director of March on Stress Ltd, which has provided training for a number of NHS organisations although NG is not clear if the company has delivered training to any of the participating trusts or not as NG does not get directly involved in commissioning specific pieces of work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Aims: Aim of this study is to better understand the role of nurses' professional judgment in nurse staffing systems., Design: Qualitative comparative case study design of nurse staffing systems in England and Wales., Methods: Data will be collected through a variety of sources: individual interviews, observations of relevant meetings and analysis of key documents. Ethical approval for the study was granted in August 2020 from The Healthcare Research Ethics Committee (SREC reference: REC741). Data generation will be informed by science and technology studies and practice theories., Discussion: Ensuring adequate numbers of nurses are available to care for patients in response to shifting demand is an international policy priority. Emerging evidence on the use of formal workforce planning methodologies across the developed world highlights both the centrality of nurses' professional judgement in nurse staffing methodologies and the urgent need for theoretically informed research to better understand and conceptualise its contribution to decision-making. This study is designed to address this gap in understanding. It takes advantage of nurses' experiences of managing the service and staffing impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic and differences in strategic approaches to nurse staffing systems between England and Wales., Impact: The research will: make visible the knowledge and skills that underpin professional judgement in nurse staffing decisions and provide a conceptual language with which to articulate this; lay the foundations for evidence-based programmes of nurse education and continuing professional development; furnish the evidence to inform the development of nurse-led decision support tools to augment professional judgement; and generate wider insights into the effectiveness of nurse staffing systems in practice., (© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Advanced Nursing published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Rationale: Restriction or prohibition of family visiting intensive care units (ICUs) during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic poses substantial barriers to communication and family- and patient-centered care. Objectives: To understand how communication among families, patients, and the ICU team was enabled during the pandemic. The secondary objectives were to understand strategies used to facilitate virtual visiting and associated benefits and barriers. Methods: A multicenter, cross-sectional, and self-administered electronic survey was sent (June 2020) to all 217 UK hospitals with at least one ICU. Results: The survey response rate was 54%; 117 of 217 hospitals (182 ICUs) responded. All hospitals imposed visiting restrictions, with visits not permitted under any circumstance in 16% of hospitals (28 ICUs); 63% (112 ICUs) of hospitals permitted family presence at the end of life. The responsibility for communicating with families shifted with decreased bedside nurse involvement. A dedicated ICU family-liaison team was established in 50% (106 ICUs) of hospitals. All but three hospitals instituted virtual visiting, although there was substantial heterogeneity in the videoconferencing platform used. Unconscious or sedated ICU patients were deemed ineligible for virtual visits in 23% of ICUs. Patients at the end of life were deemed ineligible for virtual visits in 7% of ICUs. Commonly reported benefits of virtual visiting were reducing patient psychological distress (78%), improving staff morale (68%), and reorientation of patients with delirium (47%). Common barriers to virtual visiting were related to insufficient staff time, rapid implementation of videoconferencing technology, and challenges associated with family members' ability to use videoconferencing technology or access a device. Conclusions: Virtual visiting and dedicated communication teams were common COVID-19 pandemic innovations addressing the restrictions to family ICU visiting, and they resulted in valuable benefits in terms of patient recovery and staff morale. Enhancing access and developing a more consistent approach to family virtual ICU visits could improve the quality of care, both during and outside of pandemic conditions.

Introduction: Older people living in residential and nursing care homes often have complex needs and are at high risk of poor health outcomes and mortality, especially if they contract COVID-19. Care homes use infection prevention and control measures such as social distancing and isolating residents to protect them from COVID-19. The care home sector has stated that implementing social distancing and isolation when caring for residents is a significant challenge. This paper presents the protocol of a mixed-methods study to explore and understand the real-life experiences of implementing social distancing and isolation of residents in care homes for older people from the perspective of residents, families/friends and staff working in and with care homes. The study aims to develop a toolkit of resources for health and care delivery now and for future outbreaks of infectious diseases., Methods and Analysis: The study will be conducted in three phases. Phase 1 is a rapid review of evidence to collate knowledge on the mechanisms and measures used by care homes and long-term facilities to socially distance and isolate older people or control the spread of other infectious and contagious diseases. The review results will contribute to participant interviews in phase 2 and toolkit development in phase 3. Phase 2 will involve case studies with six care homes in England, involving the conduct of individual interviews with residents, families and friends, and staff, collection of care home policies and protocols related to social distancing and isolation for residents, and routinely collected care home data. A focus group with a purposive sample of external key informants will also be conducted. Phase 3, synthesising findings from phases 1 and 2, will inform the codesign of a toolkit of resources for residents, families/friends and care homes., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has been approved by Coventry and Warwick Research Ethics Committee (20/WM/0318). To maximise impact, we will work closely with the Study Committees and the Patient and Public Involvement group to ensure the findings reach key stakeholders, including residents, families/friends, care homes, commissioners and organisations representing care home providers. We will disseminate the study outputs in peer-reviewed and professional journals, at professional conferences and via other knowledge transfer activities with the care home sector, and resident and carer organisations. The toolkit comprising evidence-informed guidance and resources and a mosaic film will be hosted on a project webpage., Registration Details: This project is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research Programme (Project reference NIHR132541). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42021226734., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has had profound effects on the working lives of healthcare workers (HCWs), but the extent to which their well-being and mental health have been affected remains unclear. This longitudinal cohort study aims to recruit a cohort of National Health Service (NHS) HCWs, conducting surveys at regular intervals to provide evidence about the prevalence of symptoms of mental disorders, and investigate associated factors such as occupational contexts and support interventions available., Methods and Analysis: All staff, students and volunteers working in the 18 participating NHS Trusts in England will be sent emails inviting them to complete a survey at baseline, with email invitations for the follow-up surveys sent 6 months and 12 months later. Opening in late April 2020, the baseline survey collects data on demographics, occupational/organisational factors, experiences of COVID-19, validated measures of symptoms of poor mental health (eg, depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder), and constructs such as resilience and moral injury. These surveys will be complemented by in-depth psychiatric interviews with a sample of HCWs. Qualitative interviews will also be conducted, to gain deeper understanding of the support programmes used or desired by staff, and facilitators and barriers to accessing such programmes., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval for the study was granted by the Health Research Authority (reference: 20/HRA/210, IRAS: 282686) and local Trust Research and Development approval. Cohort data are collected via Qualtrics online survey software, pseudonymised and held on secure university servers. Participants are aware that they can withdraw from the study at any time, and there is signposting to support services if participants feel they need it. Only those consenting to be contacted about further research will be invited to participate in further components. Findings will be rapidly shared with NHS Trusts, and via academic publications in due course., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MH, RoR and SW are senior NIHR Investigators. This paper represents independent research part-funded by the NIHR Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre Trust and King’s College London (MH, SW, SS). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care. RoR reports grants from DHSC/UKRI/ESRC COVID-19 Rapid Response Call, grants from Rosetrees Trust, grants from King’s Together rapid response call, grants from University College London (UCL) (Wellcome Trust) rapid response call, during the conduct of the study; and grants from NIHR outside the submitted work. MH reports grants from DHSC/UKRI/ESRC COVID-19 Rapid Response Call, grants from Rosetrees Trust, grants from King’s Together rapid response call, grants from UCL Partners rapid response call, during the conduct of the study; grants from Innovative Medicines Initiative and EFPIA, RADAR-CNS consortium, grants from MRC, grants from NIHR, outside the submitted work. SS reports grants from UKRI/ESRC/DHSC, grants from UCL, grants from UKRI/MRC/DHSC, grants from Rosetrees Trust, grants from King’s Together Fund, during the conduct of the study. NG reports a potential COI with NHSEI, during the conduct of the study; and is the managing director of March on Stress Ltd which has provided training for a number of NHS organisations, although it is not clear if the company has delivered training to any of the participating trusts or not as NG is not directly involved in commissioning specific pieces of work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Patient experience of nursing care is correlated with safety, clinical effectiveness, care quality, treatment outcomes and service use. Effective nursing care includes actions to develop nurse-patient relationships and deliver physical and psychosocial care to patients. The high risk of transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus compromises nursing care. No evidence-based nursing guidelines exist for patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, leading to potential variations in patient experience, outcomes, quality and costs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: we aim to recruit 840 in-patient participants treated for infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus from 14 UK hospitals, to a cluster randomised controlled trial, with embedded process and economic evaluations, of care as usual and a fundamental nursing care protocol addressing specific areas of physical, relational and psychosocial nursing care where potential variation may occur, compared with care as usual. Our coprimary outcomes are patient-reported experience (Quality from the Patients' Perspective; Relational Aspects of Care Questionnaire); secondary outcomes include care quality (pressure injuries, falls, medication errors); functional ability (Barthell Index); treatment outcomes (WHO Clinical Progression Scale); depression Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2), anxiety General Anxiety Disorder-2 (GAD-2), health utility (EQ5D) and nurse-reported outcomes (Measure of Moral Distress for Health Care Professionals). For our primary analysis, we will use a standard generalised linear mixed-effect model adjusting for ethnicity of the patient sample and research intensity at cluster level. We will also undertake a planned subgroup analysis to compare the impact of patient-level ethnicity on our primary and secondary outcomes and will undertake process and economic evaluations., Ethics and Dissemination: Research governance and ethical approvals are from the UK National Health Service Health Research Authority Research Ethics Service. Dissemination will be open access through peer-reviewed scientific journals, study website, press and online media, including free online training materials on the Open University's FutureLearn web platform., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN13177364; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)