The impact of COVID-19 on the wellbeing of the UK nursing and midwifery workforce during the first pandemic wave: A longitudinal survey study.

Citation metadata

Publisher: Elsevier B.V.
Document Type: Article
Length: 700 words

Document controls

Main content

Abstract :

Keywords COVID-19; Nurses; Midwives; Pandemics; Post-traumatic stress disorders; Professional burnout; Psychological distress; Survey Abstract Background The specific challenges experienced by the nursing and midwifery workforce in previous pandemics have exacerbated pre-existing professional and personal challenges, and triggered new issues. We aimed to determine the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the UK nursing and midwifery workforce and identify potential factors associated with signs of post-traumatic stress disorder. Methods A United Kingdom national online survey was conducted at three time-points during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic between April and August 2020 (T1 and T2 during initial wave; T3 at three-months following the first wave). All members of the UK registered and unregistered nursing and midwifery workforce were eligible to participate. The survey was promoted via social media and through organisational email and newsletters. The primary outcome was an Impact of Events Scale-Revised score indicative of a post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis (defined using the cut-off score [greater than or equal to]33). Multivariable logistic regression modelling was used to assess the association between explanatory variables and post-traumatic stress disorder. Results We received 7840 eligible responses (T1- 2040; T2- 3638; T3- 2162). Overall, 91.6% participants were female, 77.2% were adult registered nurses, and 28.7% were redeployed during the pandemic. An Impact of Events Scale-Revised score [greater than or equal to]33 (probable post-traumatic stress disorder) was observed in 44.6%, 37.1%, and 29.3% participants at T1, T2, and T3 respectively. At all three time-points, both personal and workplace factors were associated with probable post-traumatic stress disorder, although some specific associations changed over the course of the pandemic. Increased age was associated with reduced probable post-traumatic stress disorder at T1 and T2 (e.g. 41--50 years at T1 odds ratio (OR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42--0.86), but not at T3. Similarly, redeployment with inadequate/ no training was associated with increased probable post-traumatic stress disorder at T1 and T2, but not at T3 (T1 OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.06--1.77; T3 OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.89--1.55). A lack of confidence in infection prevention and control training was associated with increased probable post-traumatic stress disorder at all three time-points (e.g. T1 OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.11--1.97). Conclusion A negative psychological impact was evident 3-months following the first wave of the pandemic. Both personal and workplace are associated with adverse psychological effects linked to the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings will inform how healthcare organisations should respond to staff wellbeing needs both during the current pandemic, and in planning for future pandemics. Author Affiliation: (a) Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Road, Coventry, UK (b) Critical Care Unit, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham Heartlands Hospital, Bordesley Green, Birmingham, B9 5SS, UK (c) Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, 57 Waterloo Road, London, SE1 8WA, UK (d) St Bartholomew's Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, West Smithfield, London, EC1A 7BE, UK (e) William Harvey Research Institute, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ UK (f) School of Health Sciences, City University of London, Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0HB, UK (g) School of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Derby Road, Nottingham, NG7 2HA, UK (h) NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Queen's Medical Centre, Derby Road, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK (i) School of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University, Eastgate House, Cardiff, CF24 0AB, UK (j) Faculty of Health, University of Plymouth, Rolle Building, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK (k) School of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, 30 Priestley Rd, Guildford, GU2 7YH UK (l) Centre for Nurse, Midwife and AHP Led Research, University College London NHS Foundation Trust, 2nd Floor North, 250 Euston Rd, London NW1 2PG, UK (m) EGA Institute for Women's Health, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, Medical School Building, 74 Huntley Street, London, WC1E 6AU, UK * Corresponding author. Article History: Received 8 May 2021; Revised 30 November 2021; Accepted 3 December 2021 Byline: Keith Couper [k.couper@warwick.ac.uk] (a,b,*), Trevor Murrells [trevor.murrells@kcl.ac.uk] (c), Julie Sanders [j.sanders@qmul.ac.uk] (d,e), Janet E. Anderson [janet.anderson@city.ac.uk] (f), Holly Blake [Holly.Blake@nottingham.ac.uk] (g,h), Daniel Kelly [KellyDM@cardiff.ac.uk] (i), Bridie Kent [bridie.kent@plymouth.ac.uk] (j), Jill Maben [j.maben@surrey.ac.uk] (k), Anne Marie Rafferty [anne_marie.rafferty@kcl.ac.uk] (c), Rachel M. Taylor [rtaylor13@nhs.net] (l,m), Ruth Harris [ruth.harris@kcl.ac.uk] (c)

Source Citation

Source Citation   

Gale Document Number: GALE|A695646042