10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      No patient safety without health worker safety

      discussion

      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

          The COVID-19 pandemic provides a stark reminder of the importance of health worker safety. Inadequate personal protection equipment (PPE) has been a problem in many settings and there have been too many examples of health workers becoming infected and dying from COVID-19.1, 2, 3 The harsh consequences of inequalities have also been laid bare by the pandemic. In countries such as the UK and USA, a disproportionate number of infections and COVID-19 deaths have occurred among Black and ethnic minority communities and people in the lowest socioeconomic groups. 4 Women comprise about 70% of the health and social care workforce 5 and have been on the front lines of the response to COVID-19, where they are at increased risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection; women are also likely to be hard hit by the caregiving burdens and economic losses resulting from the pandemic.5, 6 But what the COVID-19 pandemic has also made clear is how dependent patient safety is on health worker safety. On Sept 17, as we mark World Patient Safety Day 2020, it is crucial to highlight that there can be no patient safety without health worker safety. As in previous outbreaks of Ebola virus disease, Middle East respiratory syndrome, and severe acute respiratory syndrome, only when health workers are safe can they keep patients safe and provide health systems with stability and resilience. 7 Patient safety is an essential component of universal health coverage and patients should not have to choose between no care or unsafe care.8, 9 Equally, when health systems are put under extreme pressure, and health workers are asked to go above and beyond their usual duties, the health workforce too must be kept safe. In high-income and low-income countries alike, there have been many deaths from COVID-19 among health workers. Although attempts are being made to quantify them, this remains challenging. 10 Failure to provide health workers with adequate protection against threats to their health cannot simply be attributed to inadequate resources. Many countries have revealed insufficient preparedness to protect their health workers in the event of a disaster.2, 11, 12 Yet the ability of health workers to protect citizens depends on health worker safety. If health professionals are to provide safer care for patients, all stakeholders need to swiftly and decisively address the global need for health worker safety. Although some variation exists between the risks health workers face in different settings, they fall broadly into similar categories and so a united, systematic global approach can be applied. The general categories relate to environment and infrastructure, physical safety, mental health and wellbeing, and security. Environment and infrastructure can limit the ability of staff to complete necessary safety functions; physical incidents are often trivialised as “slips, trips, and falls” but are occupational hazards that cause injuries to health workers and detract from the delivery of safe, high-quality care. 13 Furthermore, environmental challenges around infection prevention control (IPC) have been one of the biggest threats to health worker safety, especially in low-income and middle-income countries.11, 13 Exposure to respiratory and blood borne pathogens is increased in the hospital setting. However, these examples are only the tip of the iceberg. Health workers encounter other physical and psychological challenges each day related to mental health, wellbeing, and security. With prolonged hours and high workload, fatigue and stress are threats to the mental health and wellbeing of health workers, increasing the prevalence of burnout and posing a risk to their physical health from non-communicable diseases, which are exacerbated by protracted stress. 14 Preliminary evidence suggests there is a high burden of burnout and problematic safety culture for health workers responding to COVID-19. 15 Additionally, health workers are subject to frequent attacks, both in conflict zones and elsewhere, an issue that has worsened during the pandemic.16, 17, 18 Despite the 1949 Geneva Convention providing protection from violence, the safety and security of health workers remain at risk in many settings. 16 Ongoing violence against health workers and inadequate workplace safety further threaten health workers' mental and physical health. There now needs to be universal recognition that health worker safety is patient safety. One cannot exist without the other. A focus on ensuring safe working environments will lead to improved patient care. Clear, comprehensive IPC measures and guidance, together with provision of PPE supplies and positive organisational cultures, will reduce the risks of infection and physical and mental harm for health workers, and of nosocomial disease among patients. The ability of health-care systems to absorb learnings from the front line and convey compassionate leadership for their workers can help reduce burnout and foster better mental health outcomes among health workers.19, 20 If the environment is not safe for health workers, it cannot be safe for patients. Health workers cannot provide high-quality and safe care to patients in environments where there is a physical threat to their safety and they are fatigued and stressed. During the COVID-19 pandemic, health workers have been among those who have borne the brunt of the disease, with some being more vulnerable than others including women and Black and ethnic minority health workers. 1 Many health workers fear their working conditions are putting them and their families at risk. Governments and health-care organisations must act now to support and protect the health workforce so that we can provide safe care for our patients. © 2020 WHO 2020 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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references13

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

          Risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers and the general community: a prospective cohort study

          Summary Background Data for front-line health-care workers and risk of COVID-19 are limited. We sought to assess risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers compared with the general community and the effect of personal protective equipment (PPE) on risk. Methods We did a prospective, observational cohort study in the UK and the USA of the general community, including front-line health-care workers, using self-reported data from the COVID Symptom Study smartphone application (app) from March 24 (UK) and March 29 (USA) to April 23, 2020. Participants were voluntary users of the app and at first use provided information on demographic factors (including age, sex, race or ethnic background, height and weight, and occupation) and medical history, and subsequently reported any COVID-19 symptoms. We used Cox proportional hazards modelling to estimate multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of our primary outcome, which was a positive COVID-19 test. The COVID Symptom Study app is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04331509. Findings Among 2 035 395 community individuals and 99 795 front-line health-care workers, we recorded 5545 incident reports of a positive COVID-19 test over 34 435 272 person-days. Compared with the general community, front-line health-care workers were at increased risk for reporting a positive COVID-19 test (adjusted HR 11·61, 95% CI 10·93–12·33). To account for differences in testing frequency between front-line health-care workers and the general community and possible selection bias, an inverse probability-weighted model was used to adjust for the likelihood of receiving a COVID-19 test (adjusted HR 3·40, 95% CI 3·37–3·43). Secondary and post-hoc analyses suggested adequacy of PPE, clinical setting, and ethnic background were also important factors. Interpretation In the UK and the USA, risk of reporting a positive test for COVID-19 was increased among front-line health-care workers. Health-care systems should ensure adequate availability of PPE and develop additional strategies to protect health-care workers from COVID-19, particularly those from Black, Asian, and minority ethnic backgrounds. Additional follow-up of these observational findings is needed. Funding Zoe Global, Wellcome Trust, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, National Institutes of Health Research, UK Research and Innovation, Alzheimer's Society, National Institutes of Health, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The COVID-19 Pandemic: Effects on Low- and Middle-Income Countries

            Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is spreading rapidly around the world with devastating consequences on patients, health care workers, health systems, and economies. As it reaches low- and middle-income countries, its effects could be even more dire, because it will be difficult for them to respond aggressively to the pandemic. There is a great shortage of all health care providers, who will be at risk due to a lack of personal protection equipment. Social distancing will be almost impossible. The necessary resources to treat patients will be in short supply. The end result could be a catastrophic loss of life. A global effort will be required to support faltering economies and health care systems.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Redefining vulnerability in the era of COVID-19

              The Lancet (2020)
              What does it mean to be vulnerable? Vulnerable groups of people are those that are disproportionally exposed to risk, but who is included in these groups can change dynamically. A person not considered vulnerable at the outset of a pandemic can become vulnerable depending on the policy response. The risks of sudden loss of income or access to social support have consequences that are difficult to estimate and constitute a challenge in identifying all those who might become vulnerable. Certainly, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, vulnerable groups are not only elderly people, those with ill health and comorbidities, or homeless or underhoused people, but also people from a gradient of socioeconomic groups that might struggle to cope financially, mentally, or physically with the crisis. The strategies most recommended to control the spread of COVID-19—social distancing and frequent handwashing—are not easy for the millions of people who live in highly dense communities with precarious or insecure housing, and poor sanitation and access to clean water. Often people living in these settings also have malnutrition, non-communicable diseases, and infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis. In South Africa, 15 million people live in townships where the incidence of HIV is around 25%. These immunocompromised populations are at greater risk to Covid-19. Another concern in African countries is that the response to COVID-19 will come at the expense of treating other diseases. For example, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the response to Ebola resulted in the resurgence of measles. The effect of the policy response on children in the fight against COVID-19 is also a concern. On March 23, UNICEF reported that in Latin America and the Caribbean over 154 million children are temporarily out of school because of COVID-19. The impact of this policy is more far-reaching than just the loss of education—in this region, school food programmes benefit 85 million children, and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization assessed that these programmes constitute one of the most reliable daily sources of food for around 10 million children. Questioning whether appropriate evidence exists to support the reduction of transmission through school closures, Richard Armitage and Laura Nellums considered the long-term risks of deepening social, economic, and health inequities for children in a letter published in The Lancet Global Health. A 2015 UN report analysing the socioeconomic effects of Ebola in Africa also highlighted the increased risks of pregnancy in young girls, school dropout, and child abuse. The most vulnerable children are part of families in which parents have informal jobs and are not able to work from home. This predicament is particularly concerning in countries like India, where over 80% of its workforce is employed in the informal sector and a third of people work as casual labourers. In socioeconomically fragile settings, a lockdown policy can exacerbate health inequalities and the consequences need careful consideration to avoid reinforcing the vicious cycle between poverty and ill health. Human Rights Watch has reported that the lockdown in India has disproportionately affected marginalised communities because of the loss of livelihood and lack of food, shelter, health, and other basic necessities. Under this unprecedented challenge, governments must be mindful that strategies to address the pandemic should not further marginalise or stigmatise affected communities. Vulnerable groups and health inequalities are also evident in developed countries. The USA is a stark reminder of the divide that exists in countries without a universal health-care system. For people who do not have private medical insurance, this pandemic might see them face the choice of devastating financial hardship or poor health outcomes, or both. During the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic in the USA, individuals with poorer health outcomes were those in the lowest socioeconomic groups. This same group of vulnerable people have now been caught in the middle of a major health emergency as a result of long-standing differences in affluence. While responding to COVID-19, policy makers should consider the risk of deepening health inequalities. If vulnerable groups are not properly identified, the consequences of this pandemic will be even more devastating. Although WHO guidance should be followed, a one-size-fits-all model will not be appropriate. Each country must continually assess which members of society are vulnerable to fairly support those at the highest risk. © 2020 Sam Panthaky/AFP/Getty Images 2020 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.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Lancet
                Lancet
                Lancet (London, England)
                Elsevier Ltd.
                0140-6736
                1474-547X
                16 September 2020
                16 September 2020
                Affiliations
                [a ]Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, London W2 1NY, UK
                Article
                S0140-6736(20)31949-8
                10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31949-8
                7494325
                32949501
                b8e8492d-c428-4829-9991-4ee4cf0c11b6
                © 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
                Categories
                Comment

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article