Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

The mental health of staff working in intensive care during COVID-19

View ORCID ProfileNeil Greenberg, Dale Weston, Charlotte Hall, Tristan Caulfield, Victoria Williamson, Kevin Fong
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.03.20208322
Neil Greenberg
aKing’s Centre for Military Health Research, Institute of Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience, King’s College London, 10 Cutcombe Road, London, UK SE5 9RJ
fHealth Protection Research Unit, Institute of Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience, King’s College London, 10 Cutcombe Road, London, UK SE5 9RJ
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Neil Greenberg
  • For correspondence: Neil.Greenberg@kcl.ac.uk
Dale Weston
gBehavioural Science Team, Emergency Response Department Science & Technology, Public Health England, Porton Down, Salisbury, SP4 0JG
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Charlotte Hall
gBehavioural Science Team, Emergency Response Department Science & Technology, Public Health England, Porton Down, Salisbury, SP4 0JG
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tristan Caulfield
dDepartment of Computer Science, University College London, WC1E 6BT
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Victoria Williamson
aKing’s Centre for Military Health Research, Institute of Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience, King’s College London, 10 Cutcombe Road, London, UK SE5 9RJ
bDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Anna Watts Building, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6 GG
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kevin Fong
cDepartment of Science, Technology, Engineering and Public Policy (STEaPP), University College London, WC1E 6BT
eDepartment of Anaesthesia, University College London Hospital, 235 Euston Road, WC1E 6BT
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Intensive Care Unit (ICU), anaesthetic and theatres staff have faced significant challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic which have the potential to adversely affect their mental health

Aims To identify the rates of probable mental health disorder in ICU and anaesthetic staff in six English hospitals during June and July 2020

Methods An anonymised brief web-based survey comprising standardised questionnaires examining depression, anxiety symptoms, symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), wellbeing and alcohol use was administered to staff.

Results 709 participants completed the surveys comprising 291 (41%) doctors, 344 (48.5%) nurses, and 74 (10.4%) other healthcare staff. Over half (58.8%) reported good wellbeing, however 45.4% met the threshold for probable clinical significance on at least one of the following measures: severe depression (6.3%), PTSD (39.5%), severe anxiety (11.3%) or problem drinking (7.2%). 13.4% of respondents reported frequent thoughts of being better off dead, or of hurting themselves in the past two weeks. We found that doctors consistently reported better mental health than nurses.

Conclusions We found substantial rates of probable mental health disorders, and thoughts of self-harm, amongst ICU staff; these difficulties were especially prevalent in nurses. These results indicate the need for a national strategy to protect the mental health, and decrease the risk of functional impairment, of ICU staff whilst they carry out their essential work during COVID-19.

What is already known about this subject

  • Intensive care unit (ICU) staff are regularly exposed to traumatic situations as part of their job

  • Previous studies have shown them to be at risk of psychological and moral distress

  • Little is known about the mental health of ICU staff during the current pandemic

What this study adds

  • Almost half of ICU staff report symptoms consistent with a probable diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder, severe depression or anxiety or problem drinking

  • Around 1 in 7 ICU staff report recent thoughts of self-harm or of wanting to be better off dead

  • Nursing staff are more likely to report higher levels of distress than doctors or other clinical staff

What impact this may have on practice or policy

  • Healthcare managers need to prioritise staff mental health support and timely access to evidence based treatments for ICU staff

  • Supervisors and managers should be aware that a substantial proportion of ICU staff may perform less well because of their current poor state of mental health

  • More work is needed to understand whether the high levels of mental health symptoms identified in this study are truly indicative of high levels of clinical need for mental healthcare

Competing Interest Statement

KF works for NHS England. NG runs a consultancy which provides the NHS with active listening and peer support training.

Funding Statement

The research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emergency Preparedness and Response at Kings College London in partnership with Public Health England (PHE), in collaboration with the University of East Anglia and Newcastle University. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, the Department of Health or Public Health England.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The need for ethical review was discussed with two university ethics committees, King's College London (KCL) and University College London (UCL). Both ethics boards confirmed that this project does not require ethical approval as it is a service evaluation since the participants used are not randomised, the protocol does not demand any change in the care being provided or any particular intervention, and the findings will not be generalisable outside of the groups of staff that are the focus of the survey. This is as per the definition provided by the NHS Health Research Authority "Is my study research?" decision tool which also confirmed that the study did not require review by a research ethics committee.

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Footnotes

  • Funding: The research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emergency Preparedness and Response at King’s College London in partnership with Public Health England (PHE), in collaboration with the University of East Anglia and Newcastle University. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, the Department of Health or Public Health England.

  • Competing interests: KF works for NHS England. NG runs a consultancy which provides the NHS with active listening and peer support training.

  • Ethical approval: The need for ethical review was discussed with two university ethics committees both of which confirmed that, as an anonymised audit and quality improvement exericise, the survey did not require ethical approval. The ethical committees notes that participants were not randomised, the evaluation protocol did not demand any change in care provision or any particular intervention and the findings would not be generalisable outside of the staff group that were the focus of the survey. The NHS Health Research Authority ‘is my study research?’ decision tool also confirmed that the study did not require review by a research ethics committee.

Data Availability

Data is not available for sharing.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted November 05, 2020.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The mental health of staff working in intensive care during COVID-19
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
The mental health of staff working in intensive care during COVID-19
Neil Greenberg, Dale Weston, Charlotte Hall, Tristan Caulfield, Victoria Williamson, Kevin Fong
medRxiv 2020.11.03.20208322; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.03.20208322
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
The mental health of staff working in intensive care during COVID-19
Neil Greenberg, Dale Weston, Charlotte Hall, Tristan Caulfield, Victoria Williamson, Kevin Fong
medRxiv 2020.11.03.20208322; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.03.20208322

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Public and Global Health
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (216)
  • Allergy and Immunology (495)
  • Anesthesia (106)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (1096)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (196)
  • Dermatology (141)
  • Emergency Medicine (274)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (500)
  • Epidemiology (9767)
  • Forensic Medicine (5)
  • Gastroenterology (480)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (2308)
  • Geriatric Medicine (222)
  • Health Economics (462)
  • Health Informatics (1559)
  • Health Policy (735)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (603)
  • Hematology (236)
  • HIV/AIDS (503)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (11641)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (617)
  • Medical Education (237)
  • Medical Ethics (67)
  • Nephrology (257)
  • Neurology (2142)
  • Nursing (134)
  • Nutrition (336)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (427)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (517)
  • Oncology (1176)
  • Ophthalmology (364)
  • Orthopedics (128)
  • Otolaryngology (220)
  • Pain Medicine (146)
  • Palliative Medicine (50)
  • Pathology (311)
  • Pediatrics (695)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (300)
  • Primary Care Research (267)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (2180)
  • Public and Global Health (4657)
  • Radiology and Imaging (778)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (457)
  • Respiratory Medicine (623)
  • Rheumatology (274)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (225)
  • Sports Medicine (210)
  • Surgery (251)
  • Toxicology (43)
  • Transplantation (120)
  • Urology (94)