The powder keg: Lessons learned about clinical staff preparedness during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Health care professionals
Health care workers
Hospital emergency
Hospital preparedness
SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19
Journal
American journal of infection control
ISSN: 1527-3296
Titre abrégé: Am J Infect Control
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8004854
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2021
04 2021
Historique:
received:
04
06
2020
revised:
08
10
2020
accepted:
12
10
2020
pubmed:
23
10
2020
medline:
14
4
2021
entrez:
22
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Little is known about clinical staff's perspectives on preparedness for a pandemic. The purpose of this study was to obtain various clinical staff perspectives about preparedness to meet the demands for care during the early phase of the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic. We conducted a qualitative study using semistructured in-person interviews from March 2020 to April 2020 at a large tertiary academic urban hospital center. Interview guides were informed by the Resilience Framework for Public Health Emergency Preparedness and analyzed using a directed content analysis approach. Fifty-five clinical staff participated in the study. Three themes emerged from the data (1) Risk assessment and planning: "The powder keg," (2) Innovative evolution of roles and responsibilities, and (3) Pandemic response and capacity. In the early phases of the pandemic, participants reported varying levels of risks for dying. However, most participants adapted to practice changes and became innovative in their roles over time. Hierarchies were less relevant during care delivery, whereas team collaboration became crucial in managing workforce capacity. As the pandemic progressed, staff preparedness evolved through a trial-and-error approach. The pandemic is evolving as is clinical staff preparedness to meet the demands of a pandemic. In order to get a grasp on the crisis, clinical staff relied on each other and resorted to new workarounds.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Little is known about clinical staff's perspectives on preparedness for a pandemic. The purpose of this study was to obtain various clinical staff perspectives about preparedness to meet the demands for care during the early phase of the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic.
METHODS
We conducted a qualitative study using semistructured in-person interviews from March 2020 to April 2020 at a large tertiary academic urban hospital center. Interview guides were informed by the Resilience Framework for Public Health Emergency Preparedness and analyzed using a directed content analysis approach.
RESULTS
Fifty-five clinical staff participated in the study. Three themes emerged from the data (1) Risk assessment and planning: "The powder keg," (2) Innovative evolution of roles and responsibilities, and (3) Pandemic response and capacity. In the early phases of the pandemic, participants reported varying levels of risks for dying. However, most participants adapted to practice changes and became innovative in their roles over time. Hierarchies were less relevant during care delivery, whereas team collaboration became crucial in managing workforce capacity.
DISCUSSION
As the pandemic progressed, staff preparedness evolved through a trial-and-error approach.
CONCLUSIONS
The pandemic is evolving as is clinical staff preparedness to meet the demands of a pandemic. In order to get a grasp on the crisis, clinical staff relied on each other and resorted to new workarounds.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33091508
pii: S0196-6553(20)30933-0
doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2020.10.014
pmc: PMC7573671
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
478-483Subventions
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001863
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
JAMA. 2020 Apr 7;323(13):1239-1242
pubmed: 32091533
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2020 Jul;41(7):874-875
pubmed: 32131914
JAMA. 2020 Feb 25;323(8):707-708
pubmed: 31971553
Am J Infect Control. 2020 Jun;48(6):592-598
pubmed: 32334904
Appl Nurs Res. 2020 Jun;53:151251
pubmed: 32451012
Lancet Respir Med. 2020 May;8(5):506-517
pubmed: 32272080
Nurs Open. 2020 Aug 19;:
pubmed: 32904939
Lancet. 2020 Mar 14;395(10227):912-920
pubmed: 32112714
JAMA. 2020 May 19;323(19):1915-1923
pubmed: 32275295
JAMA. 2020 Apr 14;323(14):1341-1342
pubmed: 32125371
Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277-88
pubmed: 16204405
Lancet Glob Health. 2020 Jun;8(6):e790-e798
pubmed: 32573443
J Health Commun. 2018;23(5):435-444
pubmed: 29648962
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Nurs Open. 2020 Sep 11;8(1):171-179
pubmed: 33318825