We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Edited by
Richard Williams, University of South Wales,Verity Kemp, Independent Health Emergency Planning Consultant,Keith Porter, University of Birmingham,Tim Healing, Worshipful Society of Apothecaries of London,John Drury, University of Sussex
The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of the challenges that have affected healthcare staff in the UK through the COVID-19 pandemic, and to illustrate a selection of the responses of the UK’s National Health Service in establishing support systems and services to help to mitigate the psychosocial and mental health impacts on staff. The topics covered include the context of the NHS at the start of the pandemic and the framework on which the NHS response was based, the impact of the pandemic on staff members and teams, the initiatives put in place to support staff, and challenges for the future.
Edited by
Masum Khwaja, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London,Peter Tyrer, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London
Incidents involving violence and aggression are unfortunately common on mental health wards and in community settings. These incidents can lead to emotional distress, mental health issues and, in certain circumstances, moral injury. Serious incidents of aggression are, however, critical learning junctures from which improvements in clinical care should be driven. Yet if staff feel under threat or unsupported by leaders, they may not engage in the process. Clinical leaders should therefore create clinical teams which are psychologically safe, so that learning can take place as a core component of team activity. How to create such cultures is described, wherein leaders play a critical role. Staff support, after an incident, must be part of the learning process, for no traumatised team can learn effectively. Post-incident reviews should form a key component in this learning process. A team-based seven-step process of incident review is outlined, which does require skillful delivery. In some instances, a formal investigatory review might be needed, as well as prosecution of perpetrators, and brief guidance is given on this.
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the impact work can have on healthcare workers and the importance of staff support services. Rapid guidance was published to encourage preventive and responsive support for healthcare workers.
Aims
To understand mental healthcare staff's help-seeking behaviours and access to support at work in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, to inform iterative improvements to provision of staff support.
Method
We conducted a formative appraisal of access to support and support needs of staff in a National Health Service mental health trust. This involved 11 semi-structured individual interviews using a topic guide. Five virtual staff forums were additional sources of data. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to identify key themes.
Results
Peer-based, within-team support was highly valued and sought after. However, access to support was negatively affected by work pressures, physical distancing and perceived cultural barriers.
Conclusions
Healthcare organisations need to help colleagues to support each other by facilitating open, diverse workplace cultures and providing easily accessible, safe and reflective spaces. Future research should evaluate support in the evolving work contexts imposed by COVID-19 to inform interventions that account for differences across healthcare workforces.
Patients often do not eat/drink enough during hospitalization. To enable patients to meet their energy and nutritional requirements, food and catering service quality and staff support are therefore important. We assessed patients’ satisfaction with hospital food and investigated aspects influencing it.
Design
We conducted a cross-sectional study collecting patients’ preferences using a slightly modified version of the Acute Care Hospital Foodservice Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (ACHFPSQ). Factor analysis was carried out to reduce the number of food-quality and staff-issue variables. Univariate and multivariate ordinal categorical regression models were used to assess the association between food quality, staff issues, patients’ characteristics, hospital recovery aspects and overall foodservice satisfaction (OS).
Setting
A university hospital in Florence, Italy, in the period November–December 2009.
Subjects
Hospital patients aged 18+ years (n 927).
Results
Of the 1288 questionnaires distributed, 927 were returned completely or partially filled in by patients and 603 were considered eligible for analysis. Four factors (explained variance 64·3 %, Cronbach's alpha αC = 0.856), i.e. food quality (FQ; αC = 0·74), meal service quality (MSQ; αC = 0·73), hunger and quantity (HQ; αC = 0·74) and staff/service issues (SI; αC = 0·65), were extracted from seventeen items. Items investigating staff/service issues were the most positively rated while certain items investigating food quality were the least positively rated. After ordinal multiple regression analysis, OS was only significantly associated with the four factors: FQ, MSQ, HQ and SI (OR = 17·2, 6·16, 3·09 and 1·75, respectively, P < 0·001), and gender (OR = 1·53, P = 0·024).
Conclusions
The most positively scored aspects of foodservice concerned staff/service, whereas food quality was considered less positive. The aspects that most influenced patients’ satisfaction were those related to food quality.
This article is a literature report on grief issues for health care professionals, undertaken to identify Japanese nurses' grief experience when they work in palliative care units. Health care professionals' grief experience and its impact have not been well understood or identified as a significant issue in Japan.
Methods:
Published articles relating to this study were searched using electronic catalogues such as CINAHL and PsycINFO, books, and research publications. Key words used for the search were “grief,” “palliative care,” “nurse,” “staff support,” and “Japan.” Both English and Japanese were used for the literature search in order to collect information regarding nurses' grief and support systems in Japan and elsewhere. The literature search covered the period 1990–2006 inclusive.
Results:
This article explores these issues in the literature as preparation for establishing a study that will particularly look at the influence of nurses' grief on the quality of care provided.
Significance of results:
Consideration of Japanese culture as it relates to death and dying and to nursing culture is a significant part of this work.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.