Search

Abstract Background Recent pandemics have provided important lessons to inform planning for public health emergencies. Despite these lessons, gaps in implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic are evident. Additionally, research to inform interventions to support the needs of front-line nurses during a prolonged pandemic are lacking. We aimed to gain an understanding of critical care nurses’ perspectives of the ongoing pandemic, including their opinions of their organization and governments response to the pandemic, to inform interventions to improve the response to the current and future pandemics. Methods This sub-study is part of a cross-sectional online survey distributed to Canadian critical care nurses at two time points during the pandemic (March–May 2020; April–May 2021). We employed a qualitative descriptive design comprised of three open-ended questions to provide an opportunity for participants to share perspectives not specifically addressed in the main survey. Responses were analyzed using conventional content analysis. Results One hundred nine of the 168 (64.9%) participants in the second survey responded to the open-ended questions. While perspectives about effectiveness of both their organization’s and the government’s responses to the pandemic were mixed, most noted that inconsistent and unclear communication made it difficult to trust the information provided. Several participants who had worked during previous pandemics noted that their organization’s COVID-19 response failed to incorporate lessons from these past experiences. Many respondents reported high levels of burnout and moral distress that negatively affected both their professional and personal lives. Despite these experiences, several respondents noted that support from co-workers had helped them to cope with the stress and challenges. Conclusion One year into the pandemic, critical care nurses’ lived experiences continue to reflect previously identified challenges and opportunities for improvement in pandemic preparedness and response. These findings suggest that lessons from the current and prior pandemics have been inadequately considered in the COVID-19 response. Incorporation of these perspectives into interventions to improve the health system response, and support the needs of critical care nurses is essential to fostering a resilient health workforce. Research to understand the experience of other front-line workers and to learn from more and less successful interventions, and leaders, is needed.

Abstract Background Despite improvement, sepsis mortality rates remain high, with an estimated 11 million sepsis-related deaths globally in 2017 (Rudd et. al, Lancet 395:200-211, 2020). Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are estimated to account for 85% of global sepsis mortality; however, evidence for improved sepsis mortality in LMICs is lacking. We aimed to improve sepsis care and outcomes through development and evaluation of a sepsis treatment protocol tailored to the Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital Emergency Department, Ethiopia, context. Methods We employed a mixed methods design, including an interrupted times series study, pre-post knowledge testing, and process evaluation. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients receiving appropriate sepsis care (blood culture collection before antibiotics and initiation of appropriate antibiotics within 1 h of assessment). Secondary outcomes included time to antibiotic administration, 72-h sepsis mortality, and 90-day all-cause mortality. Due to poor documentation, we were unable to assess our primary outcome and time to antibiotic administration. We used segmented regression with outcomes as binomial proportions to assess the impact of the intervention on mortality. Pre-post knowledge test scores were analyzed using the Student’s t-test to compare group means for percentage of scenarios with correct diagnosis. Results A total of 113 and 300 patients were enrolled in the pre-implementation and post-implementation phases respectively. While age and gender were similar across the phases, a higher proportion (31 vs. 57%) of patients had malignancies in the post-implementation phase. We found a significant change in trend between the phases, with a trend for increasing odds of survival in the pre-implementation phase (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.98–1.56), and a shift down, with odds of survival virtually flat (OR 0.95, 95% CI. 0.88–1.03) in the post-implementation phases for 72-h mortality, and trends for survival pre- and post-implementation are virtually flat for 90-day mortality. We found no significant difference in pre-post knowledge test scores, with interpretation limited by response rate. Implementation quality was negatively impacted by resource challenges. Conclusion We found no improvement in sepsis outcomes, with a trend for increasing odds of survival lost post-implementation and no significant change in knowledge pre- and post-implementation. Variable availability of resources was the principal barrier to implementation. Trial registration Open Science Framework osf.io/ju4ga . Registered June 28, 2017