The mental health of staff working on intensive care units over the COVID-19 winter surge of 2020 in England: a cross sectional survey

  1. Charlotte E. Hall
  2. Joanna Milward
  3. Cristina Spoiala
  4. Jaskiran K. Bhogal
  5. Dale Weston
  6. Henry W.W. Potts
  7. Tristan Caulfield
  8. Michael Toolan
  9. Kate Kanga
  10. Sarah El-Sheikha
  11. Kevin Fong
  12. Neil Greenberg

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.bja.2022.03.016
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.01.13.22269151: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: These data collection points were part of an ongoing service evaluation of ICU staff’s mental health which commenced in June 2020.8 This study was approved by the Psychiatry, Nursing and Midwifery Research Ethics Subcommittee, King’s College London reference number: MOD-20/21-18162.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    14 Statistics: Using SPSS V27, descriptive statistics were plotted using counts and percentages for all mental health outcomes across the entire sample.
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    We drew on the experience of other, clinical research teams operating in this environment, and adopted a pragmatic approach to study design, opting for an agile, scalable tool which allowed the capture of data which has clear limitations but nevertheless provides unique insight into mental health impacts on staff during a unique period of operational stress in the NHS. We identified the following principal limitations: Firstly, due to not collecting identifiable data within the surveys (to ensure anonymity), it was not possible to either link cases to allow for longitudinal analysis at the level of individuals, or establish exclusivity between cases, rendering the data collected effectively cross-sectional. Therefore, time (before, after and during the peak) were not entered together into the statistical analysis. Secondly, we do not have data on the current demographic and professional characteristics of the ICU staff population during the COVID-19 crisis, so we do not know how representative the current study is. Additionally, data on ethnicity was not collected as part of the survey, limiting the generalisability of the findings. Thirdly, the recruitment method leaves open the possibility that those with more severe mental health symptoms might be more - or less - likely to participate, thus leading to bias. Fourthly, this study uses self-report measures which only provide an estimate of prevalence; interview- based studies are required to establish the true prevalence of ...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2022.01.13.22269151v1 on medRxiv