20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Burnout syndrome in Romanian medical residents in time of the COVID-19 pandemic

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Burnout is a state of physical or mental collapse caused by overwork or stress. Burnout during residency training has gained significant attention secondary to concerns regarding job performance and patient care. The new COVID-19 pandemic has raised public health problems around the world and required a reorganization of health services. In this context, burnout syndrome and physical exhaustion have become even more pronounced. Resident doctors, and especially those in certain specialties, seem even more exposed due to the higher workload, prolonged exposure and first contact with patients. This article is a short review of the literature and a presentation of some considerations regarding the activity of the medical residents in a non-Covid emergency hospital in Romania, based on the responses obtained via a questionnaire. Burnout prevalence is not equal in different specialties. We studied its impact and imagine the potential steps that can be taken in order to reduce the increasing rate of burnout syndrome in the pandemics.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Factors Associated With Mental Health Outcomes Among Health Care Workers Exposed to Coronavirus Disease 2019

          Key Points Question What factors are associated with mental health outcomes among health care workers in China who are treating patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)? Findings In this cross-sectional study of 1257 health care workers in 34 hospitals equipped with fever clinics or wards for patients with COVID-19 in multiple regions of China, a considerable proportion of health care workers reported experiencing symptoms of depression, anxiety, insomnia, and distress, especially women, nurses, those in Wuhan, and front-line health care workers directly engaged in diagnosing, treating, or providing nursing care to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Meaning These findings suggest that, among Chinese health care workers exposed to COVID-19, women, nurses, those in Wuhan, and front-line health care workers have a high risk of developing unfavorable mental health outcomes and may need psychological support or interventions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Mental health care for medical staff in China during the COVID-19 outbreak

            In December, 2019, an outbreak of a novel coronavirus pneumonia occurred in Wuhan (Hubei, China), and subsequently attracted worldwide attention. 1 By Feb 9, 2020, there were 37 294 confirmed and 28 942 suspected cases of 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in China. 2 Facing this large-scale infectious public health event, medical staff are under both physical and psychological pressure. 3 To better fight the COVID-19 outbreak, as the largest top-class tertiary hospital in Hunan Province, the Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University undertakes a considerable part of the investigation of suspected patients. The hospital has set up a 24-h fever clinic, two mild suspected infection patient screening wards, and one severe suspected infection patient screening ward. In addition to the original medical staff at the infectious disease department, volunteer medical staff have been recruited from multiple other departments. The Second Xiangya Hospital—workplace of the chairman of the Psychological Rescue Branch of the Chinese Medical Rescue Association—and the Institute of Mental Health, the Medical Psychology Research Center of the Second Xiangya Hospital, and the Chinese Medical and Psychological Disease Clinical Medicine Research Center responded rapidly to the psychological pressures on staff. A detailed psychological intervention plan was developed, which mainly covered the following three areas: building a psychological intervention medical team, which provided online courses to guide medical staff to deal with common psychological problems; a psychological assistance hotline team, which provided guidance and supervision to solve psychological problems; and psychological interventions, which provided various group activities to release stress. However, the implementation of psychological intervention services encountered obstacles, as medical staff were reluctant to participate in the group or individual psychology interventions provided to them. Moreover, individual nurses showed excitability, irritability, unwillingness to rest, and signs of psychological distress, but refused any psychological help and stated that they did not have any problems. In a 30-min interview survey with 13 medical staff at The Second Xiangya Hospital, several reasons were discovered for this refusal of help. First, getting infected was not an immediate worry to staff—they did not worry about this once they began work. Second, they did not want their families to worry about them and were afraid of bringing the virus to their home. Third, staff did not know how to deal with patients when they were unwilling to be quarantined at the hospital or did not cooperate with medical measures because of panic or a lack of knowledge about the disease. Additionally, staff worried about the shortage of protective equipment and feelings of incapability when faced with critically ill patients. Many staff mentioned that they did not need a psychologist, but needed more rest without interruption and enough protective supplies. Finally, they suggested training on psychological skills to deal with patients' anxiety, panic, and other emotional problems and, if possible, for mental health staff to be on hand to directly help these patients. Accordingly, the measures of psychological intervention were adjusted. First, the hospital provided a place for rest where staff could temporarily isolate themselves from their family. The hospital also guaranteed food and daily living supplies, and helped staff to video record their routines in the hospital to share with their families and alleviate family members' concerns. Second, in addition to disease knowledge and protective measures, pre-job training was arranged to address identification of and responses to psychological problems in patients with COVID-19, and hospital security staff were available to be sent to help deal with uncooperative patients. Third, the hospital developed detailed rules on the use and management of protective equipment to reduce worry. Fourth, leisure activities and training on how to relax were properly arranged to help staff reduce stress. Finally, psychological counsellors regularly visited the rest area to listen to difficulties or stories encountered by staff at work, and provide support accordingly. More than 100 frontline medical staff can rest in the provided rest place, and most of them report feeling at home in this accomodation. Maintaining staff mental health is essential to better control infectious diseases, although the best approach to this during the epidemic season remains unclear.4, 5 The learning from these psychological interventions is expected to help the Chinese government and other parts of the world to better respond to future unexpected infectious disease outbreaks.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Occupational risks for COVID-19 infection

              David Koh (2020)
              Coronaviruses are enveloped RNA viruses found in mammals, birds and humans. At present, six coronavirus species are known agents for illnesses in humans. Four viruses—229E, OC43, NL63 and HKU1—are prevalent and can cause respiratory symptoms. The other two—severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV)—are zoonotic in origin and can cause fatalities [1]. SARS-CoV originated in Guangdong Province, China and was responsible for the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreaks in 2002 and 2003. It rapidly spread across the globe and resulted in 8098 reported cases and 774 deaths (case-fatality rate, 9.6%) in 37 countries. MERS-CoV originated in the Middle East and caused severe respiratory disease outbreaks in 2012. Since 2012, there have been 2494 reported MERS-CoV cases resulting in 858 deaths (case-fatality rate, 34%) in 27 countries. There were also several rapid outbreaks reported, mainly in hospitals in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and South Korea [2]. On 31 December 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) China office was informed of cases of pneumonia of unknown aetiology detected in Wuhan city in Hubei Province, central China [3]. By 9 January 2020, WHO released a statement on the cluster of cases, which stated that ‘Chinese authorities have made a preliminary determination of a novel (or new) coronavirus, identified in a hospitalized person with pneumonia in Wuhan’ [4]. The virus was initially referred to as 2019-nCoV, but has since been re-named as SARS-CoV-2 by the WHO on 12 February 2020. Early indications are that the overall case-fatality rate is around 2%. An analysis of the first 425 cases provided an estimated mean incubation period of 5.2 days (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.1–7.0) and a basic reproductive number (R o) of 2.2 (95% CI 1.4–3.9) [1]. It is possible that people with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) may be infectious even before showing significant symptoms [5]. However, based on currently available data, those who have symptoms are causing the majority of virus spread. The WHO declared this disease as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) on 30 January 2020 [6]. A significant proportion of cases are related to occupational exposure. As this virus is believed to have originated from wildlife and then crossed the species barrier to infect humans, it is not unexpected that the first documented occupational groups at risk were persons working in seafood and wet animal wholesale markets in Wuhan. At the start of the outbreak, workers and visitors to the market comprised 55% of the 47 cases with onset before 1 January 2020, when the wholesale market was closed. In comparison, only 8.5% of the 378 cases with onset of symptoms after 1 January 2020 had a link with exposure at the market [1]. As cases increased and required health care, health care workers (HCWs) were next recognized as another high-risk group to acquire this infection. In a case series of 138 patients treated in a Wuhan hospital, 40 patients (29% of cases) were HCWs. Among the affected HCWs, 31 (77.5%) worked on general wards, 7 (17.5%) in the emergency department, and 2 (5%) in the intensive care unit (ICU). There was apparently a super-spreader patient encountered in the hospital, who presented with abdominal symptoms and was admitted to the surgical department. This patient infected >10 HCWs in the department [7]. China’s Vice-Minister at the National Health Commission said that 1716 health workers had been infected in the country as of Tuesday 11 February 2020, among whom 6 have died [8]. Outside of China, the first confirmed case of COVID-19 infection in Singapore was announced on 23 January 2020 by the Ministry of Health, Singapore (MOH-Sg). The MOH-Sg issues daily press reports to describe case details of confirmed COVID-19 patients. As of 11 February 2020, a total of 47 cases have been confirmed [9]. Among the first 25 locally transmitted cases, 17 cases (68%) were probably related to occupational exposure (Table 1). They included staff in the tourism, retail and hospitality industry, transport and security workers, and construction workers. Table 1. Probable occupationally acquired COVID-19 among 25 locally transmitted cases in Singapore, 4–11 February 2020 Case description (case no.a) No. of cases Staff working in a retail store selling complementary health products primarily serving Chinese tourists (Cases 19, 20, 34, 40) 4 Domestic worker who worked for Case 19 (Case 21) 1 Tour guide who led tour group from China (Case 24) 1 Jewellery store worker who served Chinese tourists (Case 25) 1 Multinational company staff attending an international business meeting in Singapore (Cases 30, 36, 39) 3 Taxi driver (Case 35) 1 Private hire car driver (Case 37) 1 Resorts World Sentosa employee (Case 43) 1 Security officer who served quarantine order to two persons (Case 44) 1 Casino worker (Case 46) 1 Cluster of two workers at the same construction siteb (Cases 42 and 47) 2 aThe case no. denotes the order of cases according to the time of announcement by the Ministry of Health, Singapore. The first 18 cases were imported cases. bTwo other cases (Cases 52 and 56) were reported from the same worksite 2 days later. An international business meeting for 109 staff was organized by a multinational company from 20–22 January 2020 in Singapore. At this event, healthy company workers interacted with other infected participants, which resulted in the transmission of the virus to three employees based in Singapore. Besides those infected from Singapore, one employee from Malaysia, two participants from South Korea and one staff member from the UK were also infected. They presented as cases after leaving Singapore. Crew on board cruise ships with infected passengers are also at risk. At least 10 cases have been reported among the 1035 crew on the liner Diamond Princess, which is currently docked in Yokohama with around 3600 people quarantined since 3 February 2020. A Hong Kong man boarded the ship on 20 January in Yokohama at the beginning of a 14-day round trip cruise. The passenger sailed from Yokohama to Hong Kong, where he disembarked on 25 January. The ship continued its journey, until news was received that the passenger tested positive on 1 February 2020. The Diamond Princess returned to Yokohama a day early, and has been quarantined since then, with guests isolated in their cabins and screened [10]. The quarantine period will end on 19 February 2020. Another cruise ship, the Dutch liner Westerdam, sailed out of Hong Kong on 1 February 2020. It was turned away by the Philippines, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Thailand and the US territory of Guam, because of fears arising from the COVID-19 outbreak—even though there was apparently no confirmed case on board [11]. The ship was finally allowed to dock in Sihanoukville, Cambodia after 13 days at sea. Besides fears of contagion from people on board cruise ships, which have been likened to ‘floating petri dishes’, fears are also widespread on land. There are increasing reports of HCWs being shunned and harassed by a fearful public because of their occupation. A Member of Parliament in Singapore highlighted what he termed as ‘disgraceful actions’ against HCWs stemming from fear and panic [12]. Some examples of behaviour described were: Taxi drivers reluctant to pick up staff in medical uniform. A healthcare professional’s private-hire vehicle cancelled because she was going to a hospital. A nurse in a lift asked why she was not taking the stairs and that she was spreading the virus to others by taking the lift. A nurse scolded for making the Mass Rapid Transit train “dirty” and spreading the virus. An ambulance driver turned away by food stall workers. However, not all the reactions from the public towards HCWs have been negative. There are probably an equal number of stories of public support and encouragement. Members of the public have showed their appreciation for HCWs and have volunteered to help the more vulnerable in society [13]. For example, a ride-hailing transport operator started a new service offering a dedicated 24-h service for HCWs travelling from work. Volunteers have also stepped forward to distribute hand sanitizers and masks to the elderly and vulnerable in their community, while sharing important public health messages. Such reactions are reminiscent of behaviour during the 2003 SARS outbreak, where not only the general public, but even close family members were afraid of being infected by HCWs exposed to the disease. A survey of over 10 000 HCWs in Singapore during the SARS outbreak of 2003 reported that many respondents experienced social stigmatization. Almost half (49%) thought that ‘people avoid me because of my job’ and 31% felt that ‘people avoid my family members because of my job’. For example, some parents of schoolchildren forbade their children to play or be close to children of HCWs. A large number (69%) of HCWs also felt that ‘people close to me are worried they might get infected through me’ [14]. On the other hand, there was also massive public support for HCWs, who were hailed as heroes in the fight against the disease. Most of the HCWs (77%) felt appreciated by society. COVID-19 is the first new occupational disease to be described in this decade. Our experiences in coping with the previous SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV outbreaks have better prepared us to face this new challenge. While the explosive increase in cases in China has overwhelmed the health care system initially, we know that public health measures such as early detection, quarantine and isolation of cases can be effective in containing the outbreak. All health personnel should be alert to the risk of COVID-19 in a wide variety of occupations, and not only HCWs. These occupational groups can be protected by good infection control practices. These at-risk groups should also be given adequate social and mental health support [15], which are needed but which are sometimes overlooked.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Med Hypotheses
                Med. Hypotheses
                Medical Hypotheses
                Elsevier Ltd.
                0306-9877
                1532-2777
                7 June 2020
                7 June 2020
                : 109972
                Affiliations
                [a ]“Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania, “Sf. Pantelimon” Emergency Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Bucharest, Romania
                [b ]“Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania, NC Paulescu National Institute of Diabetes, Nutrition and Metabolic Diseases, Department of Diabetes and Metabolic Diseases, Bucharest, Romania
                [c ]“Sf. Pantelimon” Emergency Hospital, Department of Surgery, Bucharest, Romania
                [d ]“Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania, “Sf. Pantelimon” Emergency Hospital, Department of Surgery, Bucharest, Romania
                [e ]“Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania, Gomoiu Emergency Children Clinical Hospital, Pediatrics Department, Bucharest, Romania
                [f ]“Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania, “Maria Sklodowska Curie” Emergency Children Clinical Hospital, Pediatrics Department, Bucharest, Romania
                [g ]“Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania, Cantacuzino Clinical Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Bucharest, Romania
                [h ]“Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania, Academy of Romanian Scientists, Bucharest, Romania, University Emergency Central Military Hospital, Department of Urology, Bucharest, Romania
                [i ]“Sf. Pantelimon” Emergency Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Bucharest, Romania
                [j ]“Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania, Sf. Ioan Emergency Clinical Hospital, Department of Surgery, Bucharest, Romania
                [k ]“Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania, Universitary Emergency Hospital, Department of Surgery, Bucharest, Romania
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence author at: “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania, NC Paulescu National Institute of Diabetes, Nutrition and Metabolic Diseases, 5-7, Ion Movila, 020475, Bucharest, Romania ancastoian@ 123456yahoo.com
                Article
                S0306-9877(20)31375-X 109972
                10.1016/j.mehy.2020.109972
                7276114
                32531540
                3a47eefa-406f-45f8-854d-b90920bf2b21
                © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                : 17 May 2020
                : 29 May 2020
                : 5 June 2020
                Categories
                Article

                Medicine
                burnout syndrome,residency,covid-19
                Medicine
                burnout syndrome, residency, covid-19

                Comments

                Comment on this article