Managing COVID-19 in an Australian designated isolation facility: Implications for current and future healthcare crises

  1. Helen M Achat
  2. Rakhi Mittal
  3. Joanne M Stubbs
  4. Nicky Gilroy
  5. Suzanne K Schindeler
  6. Ramon Z Shaban
  7. Thomas Solano

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Health care workers’ (HCWs) lived experiences and perceptions of the pandemic can prove to be a valuable resource in the face of a seemingly persistent Novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) – to inform ongoing efforts, as well as identify components essential to a crisis preparedness plan and the issues pertinent to supporting relevant, immediate change. We employed a phenomenological approach and, using purposive sampling, conducted 39 semi-structured interviews with senior healthcare professionals who were employed at a designated COVID-19 facility in New South Wales (NSW), Australia during the height of the pandemic in 2020. Participants comprised administrators, heads of department and senior clinicians. We obtained these HCWs’ (i) perspectives of their lived experience on what was done well and what could have been done differently and (ii) recommendations on actions for current and future crisis response. Four themes encapsulated respondents’ insights that should inform our capacity to meet current needs, direct meaningful and in situ change, and prepare us for future crises. Respondents’ observations and recommendations are informative for decision-makers tasked with mobilising an efficacious approach to the next health crisis and, in the interim, would aid the governance of a more robust workforce to effect high quality patient care in a safe environment.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.05.05.22274702: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: All interviews were recorded with the interviewees’ consent.
    IRB: Ethical considerations: This study was approved by Western Sydney Local Health District Ethics Committee (2020/ETH01674).
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    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:
    Nonetheless, most appreciated that remote working has the potential to be cost-effective, extend access to specialist care,[54] and increase productivity and job performance.[55, 56] Limitations: The present study focused on one facility that is a designated COVID-19 facility in Australia, potentially limiting its generalisability. Our purposive sampling however, captured key informants who were representative of crucial sectors of the pandemic response. They were strategically placed to identify successes and gaps in the provision of health care, and to make considered recommendations reflecting both a bird’s-eye view and coalface experiences. Despite never reaching the dire situation experienced elsewhere, it can be argued that the four themes hold worldwide applicability – with a number of their sub-components identified as important considerations in studies from Europe,[35] Canada,[49] and USA[15] – and contain generic concepts with international relevance. Our methods employing Morrow’s et al.[20] modification of Colaizzi’s phenomenological approach were strictly adhered to and re-analysis was undertaken, culminating in results based on four researchers to minimise researcher bias.

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2022.05.05.22274702v1 on medRxiv