Hospital trainees’ worries, perceived sufficiency of information and reported psychological health during the COVID-19 pandemic

  1. Barnet Hospital, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
  2. Nikoo Aziminia
  3. Aria Khani
  4. Barnet Hospital, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
  5. Colette Smith
  6. Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
  7. Ameet Bakhai
  8. Barnet Hospital, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
  9. Clifford Lisk
  10. Barnet Hospital, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, Wellhouse Lane, Barnet

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has been unsurpassed in clinical severity or infectivity since the 1918 Spanish influenza pandemic and continues to impact the world. During the A/H1N1 pandemic, healthcare workers presented concerns regarding their own and their families’ health, as well as high levels of psychological distress. We aim to assess hospital trainees’ concerns, perceived sufficiency of information, behaviour and reported psychological health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design: Single 39-point questionnaire. Setting: A large NHS foundation trust in London. Participants: 204 hospital trainee doctors. Results: 204 trainees participated, of whom 91.7% (n=187) looked after COVID-19 patients. 91.6% (n=164) were worried about COVID-19; the most frequent concern was that of family and friends dying from COVID-19 (74.6%, n=126). 22.2% (n=36) reported being infected with COVID-19. 6.8% (n=11) of trainees considered avoiding going to work. Perceived sufficiency of information about COVID-19 was moderately high. 25.9% (n=42) reported social distancing at work compared with 94.4% (n=152) outside work. 98.2% (n=159) reported using PPE and 24.7% (n=40) were confident the provided PPE protected them. 41.9% (n=67) reported their psychological health had been adversely affected. 95.6% (n=153) supported provision of psychological support services and 62.5% (n=100) stated they would consider using them. Conclusions: A significant proportion of hospital trainees expressed worries about COVID-19, above all with regards to the wellbeing of their loved ones over their own. Confidence in sufficiency of provided information was high and in utilised infection control measures low. A larger proportion of trainees reported psychological as compared with physical health concerns, with a smaller proportion confirming having been infected with COVID-19 although most perceived their risk of infection as high. Seeking solutions to support hospital trainees in their duties and their wellbeing with their input would help to empower them and improve their health and morale while working during pandemics.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.52964/amja.0839
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.22.20158311: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: The first page of the questionnaire comprised further information and informed consent.
    IACUC: The UK Health Research Authority indicated that the project did not require ethical review by an NHS/HSC or social care research ethics committee or management committee through the NHS/HSC research and development office.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot 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:
    There were limitations to our study which merit discussion in the interest of future work. We focused on the experience of hospital trainees within one NHS trust, while the experience of trainees in other London NHS trusts and indeed in other heavily impacted parts of the country would enable comparisons of experiences, between hospitals and regions. Indeed, our study explored solely the hospital trainee experience, however future similar studies may include other hospital professional groups to provide a comparison of experiences. As all hospital staff, namely those with direct patient contact, are at risk of infection, ensuring safety for all is a priority in future pandemic responses. Furthermore, while the disproportionate effects of COVID-19 onthose of ethnic minority background has been reported, due to the anonymity we employed in the surveys, our study did not follow through along demographic parameters to enable comparison of the white British and ethnic minority experiences and importantly on rates of infection. Additional avenues to be explored would be reasons for avoiding work as well as for not utilising psychological support services. These in turn would serve to better inform those central to pandemic preparedness planning to support hospital trainees and healthcare workers to perform their roles optimally and to safeguard their wellbeing, thereby contributing to improved clinical outcomes for our patients.

    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.

    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 10.1101/2020.07.22.20158311v1 on medRxiv