The COVID-19 Healthcare Personnel Study (CHPS): Overview, Methods and Preliminary Report

Introduction

The sudden onslaught of the COVID-19 in 2020 pandemic placed severe demands on US health systems and the health care workforce, especially in New York State (NYS) and New York City (NYC), the American epicenter. Early in the course of the pandemic, hospitals ran the risk of exhausting their supplies of ventilators, ICU beds, and personal protective equipment (PPE); the capacity of the health care workforce to meet the added demand was equally strained. In the late winter and early spring of 2020, NYS and New York City bore a disproportional share of the burden, with approximately half of all confirmed cases in America. NYS instituted a number of strategies to expand hospital capacity and the workforce: the governor mandated that all hospitals increase bed capacity by 50%; specialized hospital facilities were constructed in large convention spaces; efforts to purchase and obtain donated PPE were accelerated, and; volunteer, retired, and student health care professionals were enlisted to supplement the workforce. Hospitals and health systems explored ways of repurposing and expanding their stock of critical equipment.

During Spring 2020, a period of extreme system stress, when the nature and context of health care rapidly adapted and changed, the COVID-19 Healthcare Personnel Study (CHPS) was launched to longitudinally assess and mitigate the adverse health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the NYS health care workforce. Between 28 April and 30 June 2020, the height of the pandemic in NYS, CHPS collaborators recruited members of multiple health care professions across NYS to participate. Professions included physicians, nurses and nurse practitioners, medical residents, physician assistants, and ancillary health professionals such as respiratory therapists, paramedics, emergency medical technicians, visiting nurses, home health care workers, and others. Participants were drawn from community-based settings, as well as hospitals and other institutional settings.

Our initial goals were to help define the challenges and stressors experienced by healthcare workers (HCW), to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their mental, physical, and social health and that of their families, and to evaluate the role of interventions such as just-in-time training, counseling and childcare services implemented to reduce adverse health outcomes of the health care workforce and to facilitate their professional response to the pandemic.

We present here initial results of CHPS, based on the first wave of responses from physicians, nurse practitioners and physician assistants. We report key characteristics of respondents, their exposures and risk factors, including regional distribution and type of practice, exposure to and experience with treating COVID-19 patients, reported impact of the pandemic on health and practice patterns, and association of treating COVID-19 patients with testing positive for SARS-CoV2. In addition to establishing a baseline for longitudinal assessments of this important cohort this report documents its impact on healthcare professionals during an uncharted period of extreme stress.

Methods

On 28 April 2020, an invitation to participate in the CHPS survey was sent from the office of the NYS Commissioner of Health to 103,103 physicians, 21,503 nurse practitioners and 14,503 physician assistants, representing all persons licensed to practice in the state, for a total of 139,109 emails. All physicians (licensed MD/DO) are required by law (Public Health Law Section 2995-a, Education Law Section 6524) to have a NYS Health Commerce System (HCS) account and maintain information related to practice and education via the Physician Profile Application on the HCS. Other professions are not subject to this regulatory requirement. All Health Commerce System (HCS) users, regardless of profession, are presented with their contact information every six months and need to either verify that the information is correct or (edit it. This baseline survey was closed to enrollment on 30 June 2020.

The survey was administered through REDCap, a secure web application managed by Data Coordinating Center at the New York State Psychiatric Institute (NYSPI) for building and managing online surveys and databases.¹ Data were downloaded and read into the R statistical computing system,² checked for outliers and cleaned. We used raking procedure to assign a survey weight for each respondent to make the sample representative of the target population of physicians, nurse practitioners and medical assistants in age, gender and geographic location across 10 regions of New York State. ^3,4,5 Raking used the population margins of age, race and geographic location to create weights such that the weighted sample distributions of these variables conform to their population distributions. Estimated extrapolations to population-level frequencies and proportions of physicians, nurse practitioners and medical assistants by age, gender and geographic locations were based on documentation from the Center for Health Workforce Studies. ^{6, 7, 8,} and the New York State Department of Education ⁹. In the case of physician assistants, population statistics were supplemented with national-level data. ¹⁰

Statistical analyses consisted of survey-weighted counts, proportions, means, and 95% confidence intervals using the R “survey” package.¹¹ Odds ratios for association were calculated using survey-weighted logistic regression models. A one-way ANOVA for the association of an 8-category clinical specialty variables (Primary Care, Pediatrics, Emergency Medicine, Critical Care, Non-Surgical Specialties, Surgery, Behavioral Health, and Other) was conducted on non-weighted data. The protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Boards (IRB) of Columbia University Medical Center, the New York State Psychiatric Institute, the City University of New York, and NYU School of Medicine.

Results

Discussion

If the experience of New York State HCWs serves as a bellwether for the United States in the months and perhaps years to come, the COVID-19 pandemic will continue to be an unprecedented healthcare and public health challenge. We find that the COVID-19 pandemic increased the risk of infection, adversely impacted mental health and disrupted lives of HCWs. Despite this, over half of all physicians, nurse practitioners and physician assistants in this cohort provided direct patient care, indicating that they rose to the challenge despite such risks. A third changed from their usual practice or specialty, and a considerable number came out of retirement to meet the needs of their fellow New Yorkers.

The literature on HCWs responses to previous epidemics is characterized by conflicting emotions of duty and fear. These findings are consistent with results of a study of 83 French HCWs regarding their state of preparedness to treat Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever in 2015, the majority of whom (73%) wanted to be “personally involved” in patient care.¹² Although the large majority (91%) of a group of Saudi Arabian nurses reported an “ethical duty” to respond to an outbreak of MERS-CoV outbreak that occurred in Jeddah, 96% “felt nervous and scared”, and 92% had thought of quitting.¹³

Interpersonal and mental health issues may prove to be among the most important impacts of COVID-19 on HCWs. The well-publicized suicide of an emergency physician in New York City during the fielding of this survey brought this issue to the fore.¹⁴ Our study supports early reports from China that “a considerable proportion of health care workers (treating COVID-19 patients) reported experiencing symptoms of depression, anxiety, insomnia, and distress”, ¹⁵ as well as a survey of Saudi HCWs who responded to the 2014 MERS outbreak in which “almost two thirds reported having psychological problems”¹⁶. Although we did not find an association of direct COVID-19 patient care with symptoms of mental health distress, we did find that redeployment to non-familiar duties was associated with adverse mental health outcomes. Training and clinical knowledge may be key factors in addressing HCW concerns about responding to a pandemic.^17,18,19

The literature on the mental health effects of COVID-19 on HCWs remains nascent, but we can look to research on the effect SARS in the early 2000s and more recent MERS-CoV outbreaks as a guide. A 2003 survey of 769 Canadian HCWs found “higher levels of burnout (p = 0.019), psychological distress (p<0.001), and posttraumatic stress (p<0.001)” among those who had treated SARS patients compared to those who did not, one to two years after the outbreak.²⁰ In an overview of the experience of HCWs responding to the Toronto SARS outbreak in 2003, the investigators “estimated that a high degree of distress was experienced by 29-35% of hospital workers.” They concluded there were “Three categories of contributory factors…being a nurse, having contact with SARS patients and having children.”²¹

Concern for children and childcare is a frequent issue. One metanalysis concluded that “Respondents living with children or having childcare obligations were one-third less likely to be willing to work compared with those without these obligations.”¹⁷ In a series of studies of the 2003 SARS epidemic in Canada, Canadian HCW’s who developed SARS chiefly expressed concern about “the effects of quarantine and contagion on family members and friends.”²² It is vitally important to “alleviate the concerns and fears of HCWs and remove potential barriers to working” during a pandemic.²³ A 2009 study addressing this issue concluded that among the most important factors were “being ill, transportation, childcare (and) concern for family.”²⁴ Our study results are consistent with these findings from studies of these earlier outbreaks. Fully two thirds of our respondents who expressed reluctance in treating COVID-19 patients cited fear of infecting themselves or others as the primary reason.

There is evidence supporting specific measures to address distress among HCWs responding to pandemics. Among helpful factors reported by HCWs in coping with a MERS-CoV outbreak that occurred in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia were a “Positive attitude from colleagues in your department” and financial compensation.¹³ The authors of a series of studies of HCW attitudes toward responding to SARS concluded that “Reducing pandemic-related stress may best be accomplished through interventions designed to enhance resilience in psychologically healthy people,” by providing psychological first aid, institutional training, support and leadership.²⁵ The same authors also pointed to the importance of practical and tangible support,²¹ as well as the potential utility of computer-based tools to improve confidence and self-efficacy.²⁶

Our data support a high risk of contracting COVID-19 among HCWs carrying out their professional responsibilities, and describe important and meaningful challenges like a lack of personal protective equipment that contributed to that risk.²⁷ Our study’s s results indicate that accessing a test for SARS-Cov2 at the height of the pandemic in NYS was difficult for clinicians. A large proportion of HCWs who did access a test, tested positive, with an alarming 27% reported test positivity rate. A recent study reports a nearly 12-fold increased risk of infection for HCW compared to the general population, but comparisons and estimates of relative risk based on our data are difficult. During a similar time period the overall NYS positivity rate was approximately 40%,²⁸ although tests for SARS CoV-2 in NYS were in short supply²⁹ and often reserved for the sickest patients, likely increasing the general positivity rate.

Our study is subject to a number of important limitations. These results apply narrowly to physicians and advanced practice clinicians. The demographics of this group differ from other groups demonstrated to be at increased risk of COVID-19, including Blacks/African Americans who make up a large proportion of persons providing non-medical direct services to COVID-19 patients in NYC, but may not be well represented among physicians and advanced practice clinicians.³⁰ This is an area in which additional results from the CHPS addressing nursing and non-medical providers can provide insights.

While response rate was low, it was based on a single-request and is in line with recent studies of physicians.³¹ Low response rates are increasingly a feature of modern surveys, and less than optimal response rates are not necessarily indicative of poor survey quality or bias; in some instances lower response rates have been associated with less bias.³²

We utilized statistical procedure to align our survey-adjusted sample with important demographics of the target population, ^6,7,8,9,10 but our sample may be biased. One or more additional factors associated with the domains we measured may have affected the likelihood of responding to the survey, and could have biased the results. The direction of that bias is difficult to discern. Respondents may have been more severely impacted by the pandemic and thus more motivated to respond than a representative population, in which case our results may be overestimated. Alternatively, during a time when much activity in the state, including routine patient care, had been curtailed there may have been more responses from clinicians less impacted than those healthcare workers who were busier providing direct patient care to COVID-19 patients.

Conclusion

Our study adds to increasing evidence on the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the U. S. healthcare workforce. Our study finds that at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in New York State in early 2020, the majority of physicians, nurse practitioners and physician assistants responded, often having to change their usual practice, and at a cost of physical and mental health and disruption to their lives. Future research should address the evolution of these impacts to facilitate the ability and willingness of HCWs to respond to the pandemic, expanding the target population to include other workers in the healthcare workforce, understanding the ways that the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting clinical decision-making and practice behavior, and documenting the impact of altered standards of care and triage decisions on vulnerable and socially marginalized groups.