Search

Emergency Medical Service (EMS) clinicians experience high levels of occupational stress due to long hours, short staffing, and patient deaths, among other factors. While gender has been partially examined, little is known regarding the role of empathy on occupational stress and mental health (MH) outcomes among EMS clinicians. Therefore, the current study examines the moderating role of empathy and, separately, gender on associations between occupational stress and mental health. A cross-sectional examination of EMS clinician occupational and personal wellbeing was conducted via an anonymous, electronic survey. Information on clinician demographics, and validated measures of occupational stress, burnout, and MH outcomes were collected. Empathy was assessed using the Toronto Empathy Scale (TEQ). Descriptive/bivariate statistics were conducted for variables of interest. Separate multivariable regression models evaluated associations between occupational stress and mental health outcomes. Empathy and gender were examined as potential moderators using interactions. A total of 568 EMS clinicians completed the survey. High levels of mental health difficulties were reported (34.0% anxiety, 29.2% depression, 48.6% burnout). Increased occupational stress was associated with increased anxiety (OR =1.08, 95% CI 1.05-1.10), depression (OR = 1.09, 95% CI 1.06-1.10), and burnout (OR = 1.10, 95% CI 1.07-1.12). No moderation analyses were significant. Greater resilience was associated with lower depression, anxiety, and burnout. EMS clinicians, much like other first responders, experience considerable occupational stress, of which is associated with mental health difficulties and burnout. Findings underscore the need for intervention programs aimed at reducing the impact of occupational stress and the promotion of resilience. Continuing to understand the full scope of EMS mental health, including the role of resilience, is imperative, particularly in light of future public emergencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic has generated significant psychological distress among health care workers worldwide. New York State, particularly New York City and surrounding counties, were especially affected, and experienced over 430,000 COVID-19 cases and 25,000 deaths by mid-August 2020. We hypothesized that physicians and trainees (residents/fellows) who were redeployed outside of their specialty to treat COVID-19 inpatients would have higher burnout. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey to assess burnout among attending and trainee physicians who provided patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic between March-May 2020 across a diverse health care system in New York. Separate multivariable logistic regressions were performed to determine the association between redeployment and measures of burnout: Emotional Exhaustion (EE) and Depersonalization. Burnout measures were also compared by physician vs trainee status. The differential association between redeployment and outcomes with respect to trainee status was also evaluated. Results: Redeployment was significantly associated with increased odds of EE {OR =1.53, 95% CI: 1.01–2.31} after adjusting for gender and Epidemic-Pandemic Impacts Inventory (EPII) score. Similarly, being a trainee, especially a junior level trainee, was associated with increased odds of EE {OR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.01–2.51} after adjusting for gender and EPII scores. However, neither redeployment nor trainee status were significantly associated with Depersonalization. Interactions between redeployment and trainee status were not significant for any of the outcomes (p>.05). Conclusion: Physicians who were redeployed to treat COVID–19 patients had higher reported measures of EE. Trainees, irrespective of redeployment status, had higher EE as compared with attendings. Additional research is needed to understand the long-term impact of redeployment on burnout among redeployed physicians. Programs to identify and address potential burnout among physicians, particularly trainees, during pandemics may be beneficial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is a salient component of reducing occupational risk in many fields. Emergency medical services (EMS) personnel use PPE to reduce risk of exposure and defend against various pathogens they come in contact with while providing patient care. Currently, the understanding of factors that predict the use of PPE by an EMS responder during a pandemic is limited. In this study our objective was to identify factors that influenced PPE use by EMS responders during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which may guide future planning for responders in similar austere or personal risk situations. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review among all EMS encounters across an EMS agency affiliated with a large New York health system from March 16--June 30, 2020. All adult, emergency encounters with available prehospital record data were analyzed. We assessed patient- and EMS encounter-level data as possible factors that influence PPE utilization. The use of PPE was defined and guided by the literature as being either full or partial PPE, or "not documented." We used multinomial logistic regression to identify factors that influence PPE use among EMS responders. Results: We identified 28,693 eligible EMS encounters during the study period; 54.2% of patients were male, the median patient age was 58 years, and 66.9% of patients had at least one chronic medical condition. The use of PPE was documented in 92.8% of encounters, with full PPE used in 17.8% of these encounters. Full PPE utilization, relative to partial, was most strongly influenced by dispatch codes indicative of "breathing problems" (odds ratio [OR] 4.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.40, 5.46) and "cardiac/respiratory arrest" (OR 3.82; 95% CI: 2.99, 4.88), in addition to a patient's positive screening for COVID-19 on 9-1-1 dispatch (OR 3.97; 95% CI: 3.66, 4.32). Conclusion: Emergency medical services responders more frequently used ful l PPE for calls with dispatch codes indicative of respiratory distress or cardiac arrest. Understanding factors that influence PPE use among EMS personnel, particularly during times of public health emergencies, is essential to mitigate exposure and ensure the safety of frontline responders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many outpatient substance use programs have experienced in-person, remote/telehealth, and hybrid models of care since the 2020 Covid-19 Pandemic. Changes in treatment models naturally affect service utilization and may affect treatment trajectories. Currently, limited research examines the implications of different health care models on service utilization and patient outcomes in substance use treatment. Here, we reflect on the implications of each model from a patient-centered care approach and review the implications on service utilization and outcomes. We employed a retrospective, observational, longitudinal, cohort design to explore differences in demographic characteristics and service utilization among patients receiving in-person, remote, or hybrid services across four substance use clinics in New York. We reviewed admission (N = 2238) and discharge (N = 2044) data from four outpatient SUD clinics within the same health care system across three cohorts (2019, in-person; 2020, remote; 2021, hybrid). Patients discharged in 2021 (hybrid) had significantly more median total treatment visits (M = 26, p ≤ 0.0005), a longer course of treatment (M = 154.5 days, p ≤ 0.0001), and more individual counseling sessions (M = 9, p ≤ 0.0001) compared to the other two cohorts. Demographic analyses indicate more ethnoracial diversity (p = 0.0006) among patients admitted in 2021, compared to the other two cohorts. Over time, the proportion of individuals being admitted with a co-existing psychiatric disorder (2019, 49 %; 2020; 55.4 %, 2021, 54.9 %) and no prior mental health treatment (2019, 49.4 %; 2020, 46.0 %; 2021, 69.3 %) increased (p = 0.0001). Admissions in 2021 were more likely to be self-referred (32.5 %, p < 0.0001), employed full-time (39.5 %, p = 0.01), and have higher educational attainment (p = 0.0008). During hybrid treatment in 2021, patients from a wider range of ethnoracial backgrounds were admitted and retained in care, patients with higher socioeconomic status (who were previously less likely to enter treatment) were admitted, and fewer individuals left against clinical advice (compared to the remote 2020 cohort). More patients successfully completed treatment in 2021. Service utilization, demographic, and outcome trends support a hybrid model of care. • Substance use outpatients can access in-person, Telehealth, and hybrid services. • Different models of care attract and retain different demographic groups. • Hybrid services involve more patient diversity and higher intensity of care. • Patient outcomes are similar or better for Telehealth compared to in-person care. • Moving forward, both in-person and Telehealth treatment is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]