Health Care Worker Strikes and the Covid Pandemic

Impacts of industrial actions, protests, strikes and lockouts by health and care workers during COVID-19 and other pandemic contexts: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Public health emergencies of international concern (PHEICs) as the COVID-19 pandemic and others that have occurred since the early 2000s put enormous pressure on health and care systems. This is being a context for protests by health and care workers (HCWs) because of additional workload, working conditions and effects on mental and physical health. In this paper, we intended to analyze the demands of HCWs associated with industrial actions, protests, strikes and lockouts (IAPSLs) which occurred during COVID-19 pandemic and other PHEICs; to identify the impact of these grievances; and describe the relevant interventions to address these IAPSLs.

METHODS

We included studies published between January 2000 and March 2022 in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, BVS/LILACS, WHO's COVID-19 Research Database, ILO, OECD, HSRM, and Google Scholar for grey literature. Eligibility criteria were HCWs as participants, IAPSLs as phenomenon of interest occurring in the context of COVID-19 and other PHEICs. GRADE CERQual was used to assess risk of bias and confidence of evidence.

RESULTS

1656 records were retrieved, and 91 were selected for full-text screening. We included 18 publications. A system-wide approach, rather than a limited approach to institutions on strike, makes it possible to understand the full impact of the strike on health and care services. PHEICs tend to aggravate already adverse working conditions of HCWs, acting as drivers for HCWs strikes, leading to staff shortages, and financial issues, both in the North and in the Global South, particularly evident in Asia and Africa. In addition, issues related to deficiencies in leadership and governance in heath sector and lack of medical products and technologies (e.g., lack of personal protective equipment) were the main drivers of strikes, each contributing 25% of the total drivers identified.

CONCLUSIONS

It is necessary to focus on the preparedness of health and care systems to respond adequately to PHEICs, and this includes being prepared for HCWs' IAPSLs, talked much in the context of COVID-19 pandemic. Evidence to assist policymakers in defining strategies to respond adequately to the health and care needs of the population during IAPSLs is crucial. The main impact of strikes is on the disruption of health care services' provision. Gender inequality being a major issue among HCWs, a proper understanding of the full impact of the strike on health and care services will only be possible if gender lens is combined with a systemic approach, rather than gender-undifferentiated approaches limited to the institutions on strike.

Misaligned Supports: Differences in Reported Health Care Worker Well-being Supports Provided and Needed During the COVID-19 Pandemic

PURPOSE

To describe the well-being supports provided to health care workers (HCWs) during the COVID-19 pandemic in health centers and hospitals.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional qualitative interviews before and after implementation of a peer-based support intervention.

SETTING

Purposively sampled hospitals and health centers across the US.

PARTICIPANTS

28 site leaders and 56 HCWs sampled from 16 hospitals and 12 health centers.

METHOD

Site leaders and HCWs were asked to describe supports available to HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Thematic and content coding and analysis of interview responses were conducted using Dedoose.

RESULTS

Both site leaders and HCWs identified a range of support resources available. Communication resources were the most frequently cited in both groups. Health care workers reported bi-directional communication, while one-way communication was emphasized by site leaders. Hospitals highlighted counseling support, particularly Employee Assistance Programs (EAP), while health centers prioritized community support. Wellness activities were more prevalent in hospital settings, while health centers offered specific workplace-provided training for HCWs. Health care workers encountered barriers when accessing support, including limited time, fear of stigma, and disruptions to their existing support networks attributable to the pandemic.

CONCLUSION

While there are resources for HCWs, the available supports may not align with their needs and barriers to access may limit the effectiveness of these supports. Continued engagement between leaders and HCWs could help better align resources with needs.

Healthcare practitioners' construction of occupational risk during the COVID-19 pandemic

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE

In the pandemic's first year, frontline healthcare practitioners (HCPs) experienced a disproportionate burden of COVID-19's negative effects, including infection, death, trauma and burnout. Qualitative research is needed to understand practitioners' experiences to address the unique challenges they face. To this end, this article investigates occupational factors identified by practitioners as relevant to their risk perceptions. By positioning HCPs as a distinctive risk group in the hierarchical space of risk group prioritization, this analysis extends thinking about such classifications within medicine.

METHODS

Remote interviews were conducted between 2020 and 2022 with 45 U.S. practitioners, including physicians, nurse practitioners, physician associates, registered nurses and technicians. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and coded using NVivo to analyze how practitioners understood their occupational risk.

RESULTS

Participants' risk perceptions focused on three concerns. First, working within spatial concentrations of COVID-19 required adapting procedures and reimagining their bodies as potentially hazardous. Second, the limitations of protective measures elevated concerns about healthcare work, and were perceived as pitting practitioners' health against patient care and administrative needs. Third, managing the many uncertainties about COVID-19 meant HCPs risked both its known and unknown effects.

CONCLUSION

This study examines frontline practitioners' perceptions of occupational risk during the pandemic. It argues two tensions underlie practitioners' risk perceptions. First, like other essential workers, HCPs constituted a unique risk group that distinguished them from other vulnerable populations - due to risks arising from occupational rather than biomedical factors. Second, unlike other essential workers, practitioners were directly exposed to infectious patients that posed risks to their health. These elements each highlight a perceived gap between practitioners' and administrators' risk perceptions that facilitated HCP cynicism about guidelines. Future research may fruitfully investigate if these themes persist outside the U.S. and across healthcare systems.

SARS-COV-2 Pandemic: How to Maintain a COVID-free Hospital

The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome type 2 coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and its complications have demonstrated the devastating impact of a new infectious pathogen since the first months of 2020, especially on Health Systems. The work to maintain a COVID-free hospital in terms of reorganization of operational processes and surveillance against SARS-CoV-2 has allowed us to maintain the structure suitable for activities for non-positive patients. The commitment related to this reorganization (not only in terms of costs) is largely satisfied by the responses to the health needs of non-COVID patients. The results obtained during the First Pandemic phase at the Giovanni XXIII Hospital in Monastier di Treviso have allowed the maintenance of the status of a COVID-free hospital. These results are supported by multiple studies in other parts of the world.

Exploring the concept of non-violent resistance amongst healthcare workers

BACKGROUND

Non-violent resistance which has involved healthcare workers has been instrumental in securing a number of health-related gains and a force in opposing threats to health. Despite this, we know little about healthcare workers who have engaged in acts of non-violent resistance.

RESEARCH AIM

Amongst a sample of healthcare workers who had engaged in acts of resistance this study sought to explore their understanding of non-violent resistance and how or whether they felt healthcare workers made a distinct contribution to such action.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT

Healthcare workers (doctors, nurses, academics and others) from the UK and Europe who had engaged in acts of non-violent resistance.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Ethical approval for this study was granted by the University of Greenwich Human Research Ethics Committee (UREC/20.5.6.11).

FINDINGS/RESULTS

Most participants spoke about the nature of non-violent resistance, its oppositional, didactic and symbolic functions and the role of violence or harm. While most people understood non-violent resistance as a public, oppositional and collective act, many identified more subtle everyday acts in the workplace that undermined policy or procedures they saw as harmful. When asked about distinctions in non-violent resistance carried out by healthcare workers, most participants referred to their standing in society, noting that healthcare works were a trusted and authoritative source. Some identified an ethical imperative to act while others identified the risks that came with such action, noting their accountability and responsibility they had to patients. About a quarter of participants felt that such action was no different to others carrying out non-violent resistance or dependent on the issue or nature of the action.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings speak to the complex and multifaceted nature of non-violent resistance. Additionally our findings suggest healthcare workers have a distinct role to play in leading and supporting non-violent actions.

The impact of strike action on healthcare delivery: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Strike action carried out by healthcare workers raises a range of ethical issues. Most fundamentally, as a strike is designed to disrupt, it has the potential to impact patient outcomes and healthcare delivery. This paper synthesises and analyses the empirical literature that details the impact of strike action on healthcare delivery.

METHODS

A systematic scoping review was utilised to examine the extent, range and nature of research activity. Embase, Medline, CINAHL, Bioethicsline, EconLit and Web of Science were searched, yielding 5644 results. Papers were included if they examined the impact that strike action had on healthcare delivery (i.e., admissions, presentations, waiting time). After screening, 43 papers met inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies explored presentations to emergency or admissions to hospital. Both dropped dramatically when comparing non-strike to strike periods. Ten studies examined length of stay in hospital and waiting times. No clear relationship was found with strike action, with some studies showing that wait times decreased. Nine studies examined the impact of strike action in facilities that were not on strike, but were impacted by nearby strike action along with the impact that strike action had on treatment seeking. Hospitals dealing with these upstream impacts often saw increase in presentations at hospitals, but results relates to treatment seeking during strike action were mixed.

CONCLUSION

Strike action can have a substantial impact on the delivery of healthcare, but this impact is not felt uniformly across services. While many services are disrupted, a number are not, with several studies reporting increased efficiency.

The impact of health care strikes on patient mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to evaluate the impact of health care strike action on patient mortality.

DATA SOURCES

EMBASE, PubMed CINAHL, BIOETHICSLINE, EconLit, WEB OF SCIENCE, and grey literature were searched up to December 2021.

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis were utilized.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION

Random-effects meta-analysis was used to compare mortality rate during strike versus pre- or post-strike, with meta-regression employed to identify factors that might influence the potential impact of strike action. Studies were included if they were observational studies that examined in-hospital/clinic or population mortality during a strike period compared with a control period where there was no strike action.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Seventeen studies examined mortality: 14 examined in-hospital mortality and three examined population mortality. In-hospital studies represented 768,918 admissions and 7191 deaths during strike action and 1,034,437 admissions and 12,676 deaths during control periods. The pooled relative risk (RR) of in-hospital mortality did not significantly differ during strike action versus non-strike periods (RR = 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.63, 1.31, p = 0.598). Meta-regression also showed that mortality RR was not significantly impacted by country (p = 0.98), profession on strike (p = 0.32 for multiple professions, p = 0.80 for nurses), the duration of the strike (p = 0.26), or whether multiple facilities were on strike (p = 0.55). Only three studies that examined population mortality met the inclusion criteria; therefore, further analysis was not conducted. However, it is noteworthy that none of these studies reported a significant increase in population mortality attributable to strike action.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the data available, this review did not find any evidence that strike action has any significant impact on in-hospital patient mortality.

A last resort? A scoping review of patient and healthcare worker attitudes toward strike action

While strike action has been common since the industrial revolution, it often invokes a passionate and polarising response, from the strikers themselves, from employers, governments and the general public. Support or lack thereof from health workers and the general public is an important consideration in the justification of strike action. This systematic review sought to examine the impact of strike action on patient and clinician attitudes, specifically to explore (1) patient and health worker support for strike action and (2) the predictors for supporting strike action and the reasons given for engaging in strike action. A systematic scoping review was employed to identify all relevant literature, followed by a textual narrative synthesis. A total of 34 studies met inclusion criteria. Support for strike action was largely context-dependent. A range of factors impact support for strike action; broader cultural and structural factors, such as unionisation and general acceptance of strike action; systemic factors, such as the nature of the healthcare system, including infrastructure and work conditions; the strike itself and a range of individual factors, the most notable of which was being a student or in an early career stage. There were also some surprising results, for example, during doctors strike, nurses were provided with the opportunity to expand their role, which led to greater professional autonomy and job satisfaction.

The COVID-19 pandemic and disruptions to essential health services in Kenya: a retrospective time-series analysis

BACKGROUND

Public health emergencies can disrupt the provision of and access to essential health-care services, exacerbating health crises. We aimed to assess the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on essential health-care services in Kenya.

METHODS

Using county-level data routinely collected from the health information system from health facilities across the country, we used a robust mixed-effect model to examine changes in 17 indicators of essential health services across four periods: the pre-pandemic period (from January, 2018 to February, 2020), two pandemic periods (from March to November 2020, and February to October, 2021), and the period during the COVID-19-associated health-care workers' strike (from December, 2020 to January, 2021).

FINDINGS

In the pre-pandemic period, we observed a positive trend for multiple indicators. The onset of the pandemic was associated with statistically significant decreases in multiple indicators, including outpatient visits (28·7%; 95% CI 16·0-43·5%), cervical cancer screening (49·8%; 20·6-57·9%), number of HIV tests conducted (45·3%; 23·9-63·0%), patients tested for malaria (31·9%; 16·7-46·7%), number of notified tuberculosis cases (26·6%; 14·7-45·1%), hypertension cases (10·4%; 6·0-39·4%), vitamin A supplements (8·7%; 7·9-10·5%), and three doses of the diphtheria, tetanus toxoid, and pertussis vaccine administered (0·9%; 0·5-1·3%). Pneumonia cases reduced by 50·6% (31·3-67·3%), diarrhoea by 39·7% (24·8-62·7%), and children attending welfare clinics by 39·6% (23·5-47·1%). Cases of sexual violence increased by 8·0% (4·3-25·0%). Skilled deliveries, antenatal care, people with HIV infection newly started on antiretroviral therapy, confirmed cases of malaria, and diabetes cases detected were not significantly affected negatively. Although most of the health indicators began to recover during the pandemic, the health-care workers' strike resulted in nearly all indicators falling to numbers lower than those observed at the onset or during the pre-strike pandemic period.

INTERPRETATION

The COVID-19 pandemic and the associated health-care workers' strike in Kenya have been associated with a substantial disruption of essential health services, with the use of outpatient visits, screening and diagnostic services, and child immunisation adversely affected. Efforts to maintain the provision of these essential health services during a health-care crisis should target the susceptible services to prevent the exacerbation of associated disease burdens during such health crises.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Pandemic and the human factor

As the staffing crisis in the UK deepens, it is time for the policy-makers and professional bodies to rethink the approach to the most vital and yet most fragile component of the healthcare system-the human beings. The austerity measures, combined with pandemic and more recently the vision of a backlog with attached unrealistic expectations of tackling it, have brought the NHS and many other healthcare systems to the brink of a crisis. It is a human factors approach, which emphasises clinician's well-being as the core aspect of optimising performance that should become our goal. Delivery of healthcare under circumstances of physical, legal or moral threat cannot be optimal and is not sustainable. The pandemic served to highlight this quite clearly. Also, an injured, tired or burn-out healthcare professional cannot be expected to repair the system that has precipitated his or her condition. The approach to changing the culture of medicine may be multifaceted, but ultimately, we should rethink professionalism and the definition of duty of care putting emphasis on the well-being of those delivering the care as the way to assure best possible care.

The impact of strike action on patient morbidity: A systematic literature review

Strike action in healthcare has been common over the last several decades. The overarching aim of this systematic review was to synthesise and analyse the empirical literature that examines the impact of strike action on patient morbidity, that is, all patient outcomes except mortality. After conducting a search and apply eligibility criteria, 15 studies were included in this review. These articles included a variety of outcomes from hypertension control to rates of chlamydia. Strikes ranged from 13 to 118 days, with a mean strike length of 56 days. A textual narrative synthesis was employed to arrange studies by whether they had a positive, mixed or neutral or negative impact on patient morbidity. Results suggest that strike action has little impact on patient morbidity. The majority of studies reported that strike action had a neutral or mixed impact of strike action on patient morbidity. One study reported positive outcomes and three studies reported negative outcomes, however in both cases, the impact that the strike had was marginal.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination During Pregnancy and Breastfeeding: A Review of Evidence and Current Recommendations in Europe, North America, and Australasia

In the late 2020s, less than 1 year into the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, several anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines were introduced on a worldwide scale, with a significant positive impact on the consequences of the disease for several high-risk population groups. In the case of most bacterial or viral respiratory infections, pregnant women are at increased risk of complications, however, neither pregnant nor breastfeeding women were included in the first round of randomized clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, because of safety and ethical concerns. Nevertheless, most anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have not been expressly contraindicated during pregnancy or breastfeeding, and observational data on immune response, adverse effects, and clinical efficacy in pregnant and breastfeeding women have been progressively gathered during 2021. The vast majority of these data is reassuring for what concerns side effects for women and infants and points out the efficacy of vaccines in protecting women against COVID-19-related complications. Despite this, the hesitancy of pregnant and breastfeeding women at being vaccinated is still real. In this mini-review, we resume the available data on the clinical consequences of COVID-19 in pregnant women, as well as adverse effects, systemic and mucosal immune response, and clinical effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant and breastfeeding women. Moreover, we offer an updated overview of European, North American, and Australasian recommendations concerning COVID-19 vaccination in pregnant and breastfeeding women, in order to safely ensure the highest protection of women and their infants.

The workplace and psychosocial experiences of Australian junior doctors during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

Junior doctors experience high levels of psychological distress and emotional exhaustion. The current Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has resulted in significant changes to healthcare globally, with quantitative studies demonstrating increased fatigue, depression and burnout in junior doctors. However, there has been limited qualitative research to examine junior doctors' experiences, challenges and beliefs regarding management of future crises.

Aims

To investigate the workplace and psychosocial experiences of Australian junior doctors working during the second wave of the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Methods

Australian healthcare workers were invited to participate in a nationwide, voluntary, anonymous, single time point, online survey between 27 August and 23 October 2020. A qualitative descriptive study of responses to four free‐text questions from 621 junior doctors was undertaken, with responses analysed using inductive content analysis.

Results

Participants were predominantly female (73.2%), aged 31–40 years (48.0%) and most frequently reported working in medical specialties (48.4%), emergency medicine (21.7%) or intensive care medicine (11.4%). Most (51.9%) participants had 0–5 years of clinical experience since medical graduation. Junior doctors described experiences related to four key themes: a hierarchical, difficult workplace culture; challenging working conditions; disrupted training and career trajectories; and broader psychosocial impacts. The COVID‐19 pandemic exacerbated longstanding, workplace issues and stressors for junior doctors and highlighted the threat that crises pose to medical workforce retention. There is an urgent need for authentic, positive workplace cultural interventions to engage, validate and empower junior doctors.

Conclusions

Challenging workplace cultures and conditions, which have worsened during the COVID‐19 pandemic, are associated with poor psychological well‐being in junior doctors. There exists a need for long‐term, widespread improvements in workplace culture and working conditions to ensure junior doctors' well‐being, facilitate workforce retention and enhance the safety and quality of patient care in Australia.

Impact of healthcare strikes on patient mortality: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Introduction

A strike is a collective, temporary and calculated action, which involves a temporary stoppage of work. For healthcare professionals strike action poses a unique dilemma. Perhaps most fundamentally, as strike action is designed to be disruptive it has the potential to impact the delivery of care and place patient well-being in jeopardy. The objective of this study is therefore to evaluate the impact of healthcare strike action on patient mortality outcomes globally using meta-analysis in order to provide a comprehensive evidence base that can advise healthcare professionals, governments and regulatory bodies on the impact that strike action has on patients.

Methods and analysis

A comprehensive literature search of major electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, BIOETHICSLINE, EconLit, WEB OF SCIENCE, OPEN GREY and SIGMA REPOSITORY) will be undertaken to identify observational studies of strike action among healthcare professionals where in-hospital/clinic and population/community mortality is examined, prestrike, during and poststrike. Meta-analysis will be performed to estimate in-hospital/clinic and population/community mortality during periods of strike action. The quality of evidence will be assessed using the National Institute of Health quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions tool.

Ethics and dissemination

This study does not require ethical approval. Findings will be submitted to an appropriate peer-reviewed journal.

Trial registration number

CRD42021238879.

When COVID-19 Strikes Your Hospital

Kadri and colleagues presented findings from a nationally representative cohort of 144 116 hospitalized patients cared for in 558 hospitals to understand the effect of COVID-19 surges on patient outcomes. The editorialist discusses the findings and outlines potential strategies to prevent the deleterious effects of future surges on patients and staff.

A retrospective study of the impact of health worker strikes on maternal and child health care utilization in western Kenya

BACKGROUND

There have been dozens of strikes by health workers in Kenya in the past decade, but there are few studies of their impact on maternal and child health services and outcomes. We conducted a retrospective survey study to assess the impact of nationwide strikes by health workers in 2017 on utilization of maternal and child health services in western Kenya.

METHODS

We utilized a parent study to enroll women who were pregnant in 2017 when there were prolonged strikes by health workers ("strike group") and women who were pregnant in 2018 when there were no major strikes ("control group"). Trained research assistants administered a close-ended survey to retrospectively collect demographic and pregnancy-related health utilization and outcomes data. Data were collected between March and July 2019. The primary outcomes of interest were antenatal care (ANC) visits, delivery location, and early child immunizations. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate risk ratios between the strike and control groups, adjusting for socioeconomic status, health insurance status, and clustering. Adjusted risk ratios (ARR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI).

RESULTS

Of 1341 women recruited in the parent study in 2017 (strike group), we re-consented 843 women (63%) to participate. Of 924 women recruited in the control arm of the parent study in 2018 (control group), we re-consented 728 women (79%). Women in the strike group were 17% less likely to attend at least four ANC visits during their pregnancy (ARR 0.83, 95%CI 0.74, 0.94) and 16% less likely to deliver in a health facility (ARR 0.84, 95%CI 0.76, 0.92) compared to women in the control group. Whether a child received their first oral polio vaccine did not differ significantly between groups, but children of women in the strike group received their vaccine significantly longer after birth (13 days versus 7 days, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

We found that women who were pregnant during nationwide strikes by health workers in 2017 were less likely to receive WHO-recommended maternal child health services. Strategies to maintain these services during strikes are urgently needed.