Work situation of rheumatologists and residents in times of COVID-19 : Findings from a survey in Germany

Task shifting healthcare services in the post-COVID world: A scoping review

Task shifting (TS) is the redistribution of healthcare services from specialised to less-qualified providers. Need for TS was intensified during COVID-19. We explore what impact TS had on service delivery during the pandemic and examine how the pandemic affected TS strategies globally. We searched five databases in October 2022, namely Medline, CINAHL Plus, Elsevier, Global Health and Google Scholar. 35 citations were selected following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. We analysed data thematically and utilised the WHO health systems framework and emergent themes to frame findings. We uncovered instances of TS in countries across all income levels. 63% (n = 22) of the articles discussed the impact of TS on healthcare services. These encompassed services related to mental healthcare, HIV, sexual and reproductive health, nutrition and rheumatoid diseases. The remaining 37% (n = 13) focused on how the pandemic altered strategies for TS, particularly in services related to mental healthcare, HIV, hypertension, diabetes and emergency care. We also found that studies differed in how they reported TS, with majority using terms "task shifting", followed by "task sharing", "task shifting and sharing" and "task delegation". Our analysis demonstrates that TS had a substantial impact across healthcare systems. Modifying roles through training and collaboration strengthened workforce and enhanced diagnostic services. Strategic leadership played a crucial role in the process. More research on the financial aspects of TS during pandemics is required. Stakeholders generally accepted TS, but transferring staff between healthcare programs caused unintended disruptions. The pandemic reshaped TS, moving training, patient care and consultations to digital platforms. Virtual interventions showed promise, but digital access remained a challenge. Healthcare organisations adapted by modifying procedures, pathways and staff precautions. We recommend refining strategies for TS, and expanding on it to address workforce shortages, improve access, and enhance services, not only during crises but also beyond.

Workplace violence against healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Workplace violence (WPV) is a prevalent phenomenon, especially in the healthcare setting. WPV against healthcare workers (HCWs) has increased during the COVID-19 epidemic. This meta-analysis determined the prevalence and risk factors of WPV. A database search was conducted across six databases in May 2022, which was updated in October 2022. WPV prevalence among HCWs was the main outcome. Data were stratified by WPV/HCW type, pandemic period (early, mid, late), and medical specialty. WPV risk factors were the secondary outcome. All analyses were conducted through STATA. Newcastle Ottawa Scale evaluated the quality. Sensitivity analysis identified effect estimate changes. A total of 38 studies (63,672 HCWs) were analyzed. The prevalence of WPV of any kind (43%), physical (9%), verbal (48%), and emotional (26%) was high. From mid-pandemic to late-pandemic, WPV (40-47%), physical violence (12-23%), and verbal violence (45-58%) increased. Nurses had more than double the rate of physical violence (13% vs. 5%) than physicians, while WPV and verbal violence were equal. Gender, profession, and COVID-19 timing did not affect WPV, physical, or verbal violence risk. COVID-19 HCWs were more likely to be physically assaulted (logOR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.10: 0.97). Most healthcare employees suffer verbal violence, followed by emotional, bullying, sexual harassment, and physical assault. Pandemic-related workplace violence increased. Nurses were twice as violent as doctors. COVID-19 healthcare employees had a higher risk of physical and workplace violence.

Gender equity in academic rheumatology, current status and potential for improvement: a cross-sectional study to inform an EULAR task force

OBJECTIVES

Evidence on the current status of gender equity in academic rheumatology in Europe and potential for its improvement is limited. The EULAR convened a task force to obtain empirical evidence on the potential unmet need for support of female rheumatologists, health professionals and non-clinical scientists in academic rheumatology.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study comprised three web-based surveys conducted in 2020 among: (1) EULAR scientific member society leaders, (2) EULAR and Emerging EULAR Network (EMEUNET) members and (3) EULAR Council members. Statistics were descriptive with significance testing for male/female responses assessed by χ² test and t-test.

RESULTS

Data from EULAR scientific member societies in 13 countries indicated that there were disproportionately fewer women in academic rheumatology than in clinical rheumatology, and they tended to be under-represented in senior academic roles. From 324 responses of EULAR and EMEUNET members (24 countries), we detected no gender differences in leadership aspirations, self-efficacy in career advancement and work-life integration as well as the share of time spent on research, but there were gender differences in working hours and the levels of perceived gender discrimination and sexual harassment. There were gender differences in the ranking of 7 of 26 factors impacting career advancement and of 8 of 24 potential interventions to aid career advancement.

CONCLUSIONS

There are gender differences in career advancement in academic rheumatology. The study informs a EULAR task force developing a framework of potential interventions to accelerate gender-equitable career advancement in academic rheumatology.

Healthcare Workers' Perceptions and Medically Approved COVID-19 Infection Risk: Understanding the Mental Health Dimension of the Pandemic. A German Hospital Case Study

Introduction

This study analyses how healthcare workers (HCWs) perceived risks, protection and preventive measures during the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to medically approved risks and organizational measures. The aim is to explore “blind spots” of pandemic protection and make mental health needs of HCWs visible.

Methods

We have chosen an “optimal-case” scenario of a high-income country with a well-resourced hospital sector and low HCW infection rate at the organizational level to explore governance gaps in HCW protection. A German multi-method hospital study at Hannover Medical School served as empirical case; document analysis, expert information and survey data (n = 1,163) were collected as part of a clinical study into SARS-CoV-2 serology testing during the second wave of the pandemic (November 2020-February 2021). Selected survey items included perceptions of risks, protection and preventive measures. Descriptive statistical analysis and regression were undertaken for gender, profession and COVID-19 patient care.

Results

The results reveal a low risk of 1% medically approved infections among participants, but a much higher mean personal risk estimate of 15%. The majority (68.4%) expressed “some” to “very strong” fear of acquiring infection at the workplace. Individual protective behavior and compliance with protective workplace measures were estimated as very high. Yet only about half of the respondents felt strongly protected by the employer; 12% even perceived “no” or “little” protection. Gender and contact with COVID-19 patients had no significant effect on the estimations of infection risks and protective workplace behavior, but nursing was correlated with higher levels of personal risk estimations and fear of infection.

Conclusions

A strong mismatch between low medically approved risk and personal risk perceptions of HCWs brings stressors and threats into view, that may be preventable through better information, training/education and risk communication and through investment in mental health and inclusion in pandemic preparedness plans.