Search

Background: The unprecedented rapid re-deployment of healthcare workers from different care pathways into newly created and fluid COVID-19 teams provides a unique opportunity to examine the interaction of many of the established non-technical factors for successful delivery of clinical care and teamwork in healthcare settings. This research paper therefore aims to address these gaps by qualitatively exploring the impact of COVID work throughout the pandemic on permanent and deployed personnel’s experiences, their ability to effectively work together, and the effect of social dynamics (e.g., cohesion, social support) on teamwork and mental health. Methods: Seventy-five interviews were conducted across the UK between March and December 2021 during wave 2 and 3 of COVID-19 with 75 healthcare workers who were either permanent staff on Intensive Care/High Dependency Units used as COVID wards, had been rapidly deployed to such a ward, or had managed such wards. Work Life Balance was measured using the WLB Scale. Interview transcripts were qualitatively coded and thematic codes were compared using network graph modeling. Results: Using thematic network analysis, four overarching thematic clusters were found, (1) teamwork, (2) organizational support and management, (3) cohesion and social support, and (4) psychological strain. The study has three main findings. First, the importance of social factors for teamwork and mental health, whereby team identity may influence perceptions of preparedness, collaboration and communication, and impact on the collective appraisal of stressful events and work stressors. Secondly, it demonstrates the positive and negative impact of professional roles and skills on the development of teamwork and team identity. Lastly the study identifies the more pronounced negative impact of COVID work on deployed personnel’s workload, mental health, and career intentions, exacerbated by reduced levels of social support during, and after, their deployment

The rapid increase of acute and intensive care capacities in hospitals needed during the response to COVID-19 created an urgent demand for skilled healthcare staff across the globe. To upscale capacity, many hospitals chose to increase their teams in these departments with rapidly re-deployed inter-professional healthcare personnel, many of whom had no prior experience of working in a high-risk environment and were neither prepared nor trained for work on such wards. This systematic review of reviews examines the current evidence base for successful teamwork in rapidly deployed interprofessional teams in intensive and acute care settings, by assessing systematic reviews of empirical studies to inform future deployments and support of rapidly formed clinical teams. This study identified 18 systematic reviews for further analysis. Utilising an integrative narrative synthesis process supported by thematic coding and graphical network analysis, 13 themes were found to dominate the literature on teams and teamwork in inter-professional and inter-disciplinary teams. This approach was chosen to make the selection process more transparent and enable the thematic clusters in the reviewed papers to be presented visually and codifying four factors that structure the literature on inter-professional teams (i.e., team-internal procedures and dynamics, communicative processes, organisational and team extrinsic influences on teams, and lastly patient and staff outcomes). Practically, the findings suggest that managers and team leaders in fluid and ad-hoc inter-professional healthcare teams in an intensive care environment need to pay attention to reducing pre-existing occupational identities and power-dynamics by emphasizing skill mix, establishing combined workspaces and break areas, clarifying roles and responsibilities, facilitating formal information exchange and developing informal opportunities for communication. The results may guide the further analysis of factors that aff

Nicolaides-Baraitser syndrome (NCBRS), caused by a mutation in the SMARCA2 gene, which goes along with intellectual disability, congenital malformations, especially of face and limbs, and often difficult-to-treat epilepsy, is surveyed focusing on epilepsy and its treatment. Patients were recruited via Network Therapy of Rare Epilepsies (NETRE) and an international NCBRS parent support group. Inclusion criterion is NCBRS-defining SMARCA2 mutation. Clinical findings including epilepsy classification, anticonvulsive treatment, electroencephalogram (EEG) findings, and neurodevelopmental outcome were collected with an electronic questionnaire. Inclusion of 25 NCBRS patients with epilepsy in 23 of 25. Overall, 85% of the participants (17/20) reported generalized seizures, the semiology varied widely. EEG showed generalized epileptogenic abnormalities in 53% (9/17), cranial magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) was mainly inconspicuous. The five most frequently used anticonvulsive drugs were valproic acid (VPA [12/20]), levetiracetam (LEV [12/20]), phenobarbital (PB [8/20]), topiramate (TPM [5/20]), and carbamazepine (CBZ [5/20]). LEV (9/12), PB (6/8), TPM (4/5), and VPA (9/12) reduced the seizures' frequency in more than 50%. Temporary freedom of seizures (>6 months) was reached with LEV (4/12), PB (3/8), TPM (1/5, only combined with PB and nitrazepam [NZP]), and VPA (4/12). Seizures aggravation was observed under lamotrigine (LTG [2/4]), LEV (1/12), PB (1/8), and VPA (1/12). Ketogenic diet (KD) and vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) reduced seizures' frequency in one of two each. This first worldwide retrospective analysis of anticonvulsive therapy in NCBRS helps to treat epilepsy in NCBRS that mostly shows only initial response to anticonvulsive therapy, especially with LEV and VPA, but very rarely shows complete freedom of seizures in this, rather genetic than structural epilepsy.

Background: Highly infectious diseases (HIDs) are (i) easily transmissible from person to person; (ii) cause a life-threatening illness with no or few treatment options; and (iii) pose a threat for both personnel and the public. Hence, even suspected HID cases should be managed in specialised facilities minimizing infection risks but allowing state-of-the-art critical care. Consensus statements on the operational management of isolation facilities have been published recently. The study presented was set up to compare the operational management, resources, and technical equipment among European isolation facilities. Due to differences in geography, population density, and national response plans it was hypothesized that adherence to recommendations will vary. Methods and Findings: Until mid of 2010 the European Network for Highly Infectious Diseases conducted a cross-sectional analysis of isolation facilities in Europe, recruiting 48 isolation facilities in 16 countries. Three checklists were disseminated, assessing 44 items and 148 specific questions. The median feedback rate for specific questions was 97.9% (n = 47/48) (range: n = 7/48 (14.6%) to n = 48/48 (100%). Although all facilities enrolled were nominated specialised facilities' serving countries or regions, their design, equipment and personnel management varied. Eighteen facilities fulfilled the definition of a High Level Isolation Unit'. In contrast, 24 facilities could not operate independently from their co-located hospital, and five could not ensure access to equipment essential for infection control. Data presented are not representative for the EU in general, as only 16/27 (59.3%) of all Member States agreed to participate. Another limitation of this study is the time elapsed between data collection and publication; e.g. in Germany one additional facility opened in the meantime. Conclusion: There are disparities both within and between European countries regarding the design and equipment of isolatio

Background: Highly infectious diseases (HIDs) are defined as being transmissible from person to person, causing life-threatening illnesses and presenting a serious public health hazard. The sampling, handling and transport of specimens from patients with HIDs present specific bio-safety concerns. Findings The European Network for HID project aimed to record, in a cross-sectional study, the infection control capabilities of referral centers for HIDs across Europe and assesses the level of achievement to previously published guidelines. In this paper, we report the current diagnostic capabilities and bio-safety measures applied to diagnostic procedures in these referral centers. Overall, 48 isolation facilities in 16 European countries were evaluated. Although 81% of these referral centers are located near a biosafety level 3 laboratory, 11% and 31% of them still performed their microbiological and routine diagnostic analyses, respectively, without bio-safety measures. Conclusions: The discrepancies among the referral centers surveyed between the level of practices and the European Network of Infectious Diseases (EUNID) recommendations have multiple reasons of which the interest of the individuals in charge and the investment they put in preparedness to emerging outbreaks. Despite the fact that the less prepared centers can improve by just updating their practice and policies any support to help them to achieve an acceptable level of biosecurity is welcome.

Background: In Emergency and Medical Admission Departments (EDs and MADs), prompt recognition and appropriate infection control management of patients with Highly Infectious Diseases (HIDs, e.g. Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers and SARS) are fundamental for avoiding nosocomial outbreaks. Methods: The EuroNHID (European Network for Highly Infectious Diseases) project collected data from 41 EDs and MADs in 14 European countries, located in the same facility as a national/regional referral centre for HIDs, using specifically developed checklists, during on-site visits from February to November 2009. Results: Isolation rooms were available in 34 facilities (82,9%): these rooms had anteroom in 19, dedicated entrance in 15, negative pressure in 17, and HEPA filtration of exhausting air in 12. Only 6 centres (14,6%) had isolation rooms with all characteristics. Personnel trained for the recognition of HIDs was available in 24 facilities; management protocols for HIDs were available in 35. Conclusions: Preparedness level for the safe and appropriate management of HIDs is partially adequate in the surveyed EDs and MADs.