Abstract
Aim Assessing the needs and experiences of re-entering nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Background During the COVID-19 outbreak in the Netherlands, thousands of former nurses have returned to nursing to support healthcare staff. After a period of absence and with little time to prepare, these former nurses re-entered during a challenging, uncertain and rapidly evolving pandemic. Little is known about the experiences and needs of these re-entering nurses.
Design Qualitative study
Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 purposively selected nurses who had re-entered nursing during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed via thematic content analysis. This study followed the COREQ guidelines.
Results Participants mentioned that a lack of a clear job description led to unclarity about the kind of tasks that re-entering nurses were expected and allowed to perform. This unclarity was especially notable in the newly established COVID-19 departments. Re-entering nurses mentioned to wish for an easily accessible mentorship structure and an individualised and practical training program. Re-entering nurses felt supported by a positive team dynamic, which was shaped by the sense of urgency and relevance of their work and helped them deal with stressful experiences.
Conclusion The results indicate that a rapid and safe return to nursing during a pandemic could be facilitated by: a clear description of roles and responsibilities; an individualised assessment determining the competences and knowledge disparities of re-entering nurses; practical training focussing on competencies needed during a pandemic; and a collaborative mentorship structure to guide re-entering nurses.
Relevance to clinical practice The rapid recruitment of former nurses to mitigate an acute shortage of qualified nurses could play a vital role during a pandemic. To deploy these nurses effectively, safely and sustainably, it is important to address the needs of these re-entering nurses.
What does this paper contribute towards the wider global clinical community?
This research showed the need to prepare a flexible individualised training programme which could support re-entering nurses during crisis situations, such as a pandemic.
A responsive mentorship structure helps to provide support to re-entering nurses in a dynamic, uncertain and rapidly evolving situation.
In a rapidly evolving situation, it is essential to continue to create clarity about the roles and responsibilities of re-entering nurses.
Introduction
The worldwide shortage of nurses, which is estimated to be over six million, is further pressurized by the COVID-19 pandemic (World Health Organisation (WHO), 2020). Many patients with COVID-19 require hospitalisation and/or specialised care, which is heavily straining healthcare capacity and leads to a rapid increase in the need for qualified nurses (Huang et al., 2020; Zhu & Zhang et al., 2019).
In the Netherlands, the need to rapidly deploy more nurses became even before COVID-19 was declared a pandemic in March 2020. Before the start of the pandemic, the Dutch Ministry of Health (MOH) was anticipating that the shortage of health workers would rise to over 80,000 by 2022 (ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport (VWS), 2019). To rapidly expand the number of nurses who could be deployed during the pandemic, the Dutch MOH supported the recruitment of former nurses willing to re-enter into nursing (VWS, 2020a; Bruins, 2020). Approximately, over five thousand former nurses re-entered in different settings of the Dutch healthcare system at the height of the first wave (Wapenaar, 2020). Three important challenges of this process requiring further study were identified: nursing during a new, emerging pandemic, little preparation time and re-entering after a (long) period of absence.
Nursing during a rapidly evolving pandemic is challenging. Health workers in the frontlines are subjected to multiple hazards, such as prolonged working hours, shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE), and a higher risk of infection, due to the increased exposure to infected patients (Lai et al., 2020; Zhu, Xu et al., 2020). Moreover, early research during the beginning of the pandemic in Wuhan China reported nurses experiencing anxiety, depression and stress (Zhu, Xu et al., 2020). Comparable findings have been reported during previous MERS, Ebola and SARS outbreaks (Khalid et al., 2016; Maunder et al., 2003; Cénat et al, 2020). In contrast, studies have also reported that providing care during a crisis situation, such as the civil war in Guinea-Bissau, can lead to an increase in dedication, focus and morale among staff, which is thought to have contributed to a decrease in infant mortality rates under five in hospitals (Biai et al., 2007).
Additionally, research shows that former nurses returning to health care have indicated to struggle with anxiety and insecurities about their capabilities, changed roles, new technologies, the amount of paperwork, accountability measures and responsibility levels and a negative attitude from other health-care personnel when re-entering after a (long) period of absence (Durand & Randhawa, 2002; Long & West, 2007).
Little is known about how former nurses perceive the process of re-entering and what their needs are in times of a newly emerging and ongoing pandemic. The current pandemic will presumably continue until effective vaccines are widely available and rolled out effectively and new mutations and other pandemics are likely to emerge (Cui et al., 2019; Anderson et al., 2020). Hence, the rapid recruitment of former nurses to mitigate an acute shortage of qualified nurses is likely to be vital in new and evolving pandemics and other health crises. To learn how former nurses re-entering during the COVID-19 pandemic can be best supported, this qualitative study aims to assess their experiences and needs during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands.
Methods
We conducted a qualitative study, using an interpretative phenomenological approach, which emphases the lived experiences of participants in the context of their ‘real world’ (Green & Thorogood, 2018). To present the methods section, we used the Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative research (COREQ) (c.f. Supplementary File 1)
Study population
Purposive sampling of re-entering nurses employed in different settings in healthcare enabled the comparison in experiences and needs within various settings. Via social media platforms, re-entering nurses were approached and asked to participate. Additionally, four participants were recruited through snowball sampling.
Re-entering nurses were included if they had not worked on a nursing ward for at least one year and re-entered between March 2020 and June 2020 to make sure that the re-entering process indeed took place in the context of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants had to be employed within the following settings: hospitals, rehabilitation centres, home care, nursing home settings or newly established COVID-19 departments within nursing home settings. A total of 20 participants were included for this research.
Data collection
Data collection was done through one-on-one in-depth semi-structured interviewing. A semi-structured interview guide was based upon concepts identified in the literature (appendix 1) as well as intuition and consisted of themes with leading questions and examples for prompts (appendix 2). Interviews lasted 56-110 (Med 85,5) minutes and were conducted through Skype because of social distancing regulations. One interview was conducted by phone because of technical issues. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed afterwards.
Memos were made during the interview process and were afterwards directly supplemented with short summaries of the interviews.
Data analysis
Data collection and analysis were an iterative process. The analysis started after the first interview, hence resulted in a cyclical process in which the researcher moves back and forth between data and analysis (Green & Thorogood, 2018). The steps and decisions that were made during the study were described in an audit trail. A thematic content analysis was used to analyse data. The first step in the process was familiarisation with the data, done through re-listening to tapes and reading through transcripts and interview summaries (Green & Thorogood, 2018). Secondly, data of five interviews were coded, and regularities were inductively categorised in themes. The emerging coding scheme was then applied to all data (appendix 3). Finally, data from all cases are organised horizontally across the themes. MAXQDA2020 (VERBI Software, 2019) was used for organisation and coding. Data saturation on the main themes was reached after 13 interviews.
Research ethics
The study proposal was checked and approved by the ethical committee of the Faculty of Science of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (https://beta.vu.nl/nl/onderzoek/research-ethics-review/index.aspx). According to the committee, the study was not subject to the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO). Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to the interview.
The researcher conducting the interviews (SAN) has a background in nursing and was employed as a nurse at a COVID-19 department during the conduct of this study. A diary was kept as a reflexivity tool to avoid personal assumptions and preconceptions. Participants were aware of the background of the researcher and the study aims.
Results
Characteristics
Characteristics of the 20 participants are described in table 1. Most participants re-entered care within a period of days to two weeks after applying. At the time of the interview, most nurses had re-entered in nursing for at least a month. Most of the former nurses who were able to retain their BIG-registration (appendix 4) still worked in a profession closely related to individual healthcare (e.g. nursing management or nursing teaching positions). Two returners were able to retain a BIG-registration due to the adjustments in the Dutch regulations that temporarily revoked the expiry of the BIG-registration.
Characteristics of respondents (n=20)
Healthcare settings and job positions
Participants were placed in different settings and operated in various positions within the Dutch healthcare system. Placements depended on the preferences of participants and the needs of healthcare organisations in the different regions of the Netherlands. All nurses who had experience in working at an intensive care unit (ICU) were positioned at ICUs in hospitals, regardless of the number of years they were absent from nursing. For instance, one former ICU nurse had quit nursing in 1999, yet was still employed to assist at an ICU. All re-entering nurses working on ICUs were confronted with COVID-19 patients. Within nursing home settings, new departments were established to accommodate the increasing number of COVID-19 patients. In two occasions hotels were temporarily converted into COVID-19 units. Three respondents worked in newly established departments for low-complex COVID-19 patients or non-COVID patients with low-complex care demands within hospital settings. These departments were constructed to reduce the pressure on healthcare within hospitals.
Some re-entering nurses were employed as regularly qualified and registered nurses, while other participants were recruited for more supporting roles, such as nurse assistant staffing and nurse aide staffing. Additionally, during the peak of COVID-19, a new position was implemented in hospitals, a so-called ‘buddy role’ to assist nursing staff in their daily tasks.
Job description & task coordination
The majority of the participants argued that there was no clear job description allocated to their position. However, the extent to which division of tasks was coordinated differed per healthcare setting. Participants described working in rapidly established COVID-19 departments as pioneering and mentioned that a structured working method still had to be formulated. In practice, most declared to have equivalent jobs, performing every task within their ability and complementing each other.
“We were kind of told. ‘do whatever you can.’ You have to compare it to development aid. ‘Do what you can do, and if you have any questions, we will hear from you.’ With that message they kind of let us go.“ (Participant at COVID-19 department in a nursing home setting) R5
Those working in nursing homes or at a rehabilitation centre mentioned that the interpretation of their role was often not discussed and that the interpretation mostly depended on their own perception. These re-entering nurses said they felt comfortable in their role due to the limited complexity of the care that they provided and its supportive nature.
“People on the ward knew that I was coming, but my role was not clear, it had not been communicated. It was a bit difficult because I was not sure myself either. I just introduced myself a bit, and they left it up to me to decide what I did and did not want to do.” (Participant at Nursing home) R6
Re-entering nurses in a buddy role in a hospital setting were generally positive about the buddy system, which allowed them to coordinate the division of tasks together with a more experienced nurse. This position was often described as very task-oriented. Some re-entering nurses declared to perform specific chores delegated by nursing staff, such as washing patients, preparing medicine or stocking the department. Others mentioned independently taking care of a single patient per shift whilst nursing staff retained the ultimate responsibility and guided buddies by maintaining a helicopter view. The hospital-based participants working as independent nurses declared not to experience any unclarity with the scope of their role:
“At 7:30, you were linked to an ICU nurse, who told you what patients you were going to take care of. They said, ‘the idea is that everything I ask you to do, you essentially should do.’” (Participant buddy at ICU) R11
Overall, the scope of practice for returners seems to be strongly linked to the extent to which re-entering nurses felt comfortable and proficient at executing the tasks aligned to their position. The importance of protecting one’s boundaries was commonly reported by participants. For example, most re-entering nurses in COVID-19 departments were employed as a nurse during their return but declared not feeling comfortable with the responsibility, thus took a more supporting role instead. Contrarily, a few nurses who returned to the ICU started as buddies, but mentioned to quickly get accustomed to nursing again and therefore stepped into the role of an independent nurse. However, this led to unusual situations. One participant who had not worked as a nurse for eight years mentioned:
“I was always scheduled as a buddy. However, they (referring to nursing staff) quickly realised that they could deploy me as an independent nurse, which is obviously madness because if you think about it…on my fifth day, I was taking care of my own patient. I only had been walking around there for five days, so that is kind of… it needs to be in your nature to dare to take on that responsibility. I did that with limited knowledge. I had my own buddy because of that, and that helped.” (Participant independent nurse at ICU) R7
Even though re-entering nurses mostly felt comfortable in their role, in all settings participants mentioned examples of unclarity that was caused by the lack of a clear job description. Some participants said that expectations within teams deviated. For instance, one participant mentioned discovering that she was allocated to be the nurse with the final responsibility, while this had not been communicated to her. Another participant said that her new colleagues did not expect to get a re-entering nurse in their team:
“Well, they put me in a protective suit, gave me a mask and gloves and then I was allowed to go into the ward. There were already two people working, and I asked with whom I could tag along. Their reaction was: ‘tag along? Surely you can wash people?’ It was a bit like: ‘we cannot give instructions to people right now; we need a pair of extra hands on the bed.’” (Participant at COVID-19 department in a nursing home setting) R10
Moreover, some participants mentioned that it was unclear what the limitations of their role were and what nursing skills they were authorised to execute or not. The authorisation concerning the execution of practical nursing skills or the reserved procedures (as described in the BIG-law) were handled differently per organisation. In some cases, re-entering nurses said that they agree with colleagues that they could not perform any reserved nursing procedures or high-risk practical nursing skills. Others declared to be allowed to perform these specific tasks when colleagues could confirm their competences or if they felt comfortable and proficient at doing so.
“Well, in the beginning I mentioned the BIG registration. Yes, I think it’s good that it exists -the BIG registration - but then the question is how flexible should we deal with this? Do you say someone is going to work again, and they will acquire their BIG registration again during that year, or do you say you can’t work until you are BIG registered again, that’s a bit
… In this crisis situation, no one asked ‘gosh (participant’s name), please hand over your BIG registration.’ “ Participant at ICU) R3
Additionally, within nursing homes, some re-entering nurses mentioned confusion about the distinction in nursing skills. Not all practical nursing skills are reserved procedures, and some participants mentioned to question if healthcare staff was aware of the difference between practical nursing skills and the reserved nursing procedures:
“I believe that if you are not articulate enough and you get the confidence that you can do this, you might be tempted to do something for which you are not authorised. For me, that was with the replacement of catheter bags. Yes, I did not know myself either what I was allowed to do or not with that. Is that a reserved nursing procedure, or is it not? If that is unclear for them (referring to colleagues), then it is unclear for me, and there was, actually no one who told me at the beginning what I could or could not do.” (Participant at Nursing home) R2
In light of the COVID-19 pandemic and its unexpected magnitude, most participants said that it was understandable that no clear task description was available. Re-entering nurses mentioned being flexible and open-minded towards their role. However, participants also said that a framework with a job description would have helped to clarify their position for themselves and their colleagues:
“It would have been nice for me personally, and the rest of the team, if there was an instruction sheet stating specific tasks I can do, and the ones I can leave for someone else to do. I think that would have helped a lot.” (Participant at a nursing home setting) R6
Supervision & guidance
The extent to which supervision and guidance for re-entering nurses was provided differed per healthcare organisation. Overall participants mentioned taking responsibility upon themselves to be proactive and ask questions to their colleagues. The re-entering nurses placed in a buddy role were linked to one particular nurse who maintained a helicopter view of the activities, and most buddies said that this provided adequate guidance. However, some of the re-entering nurses in the other settings who were not linked to healthcare staff mentioned that they would have preferred to have one specific person to whom they could turn to for advice and evaluation.
“In practice, I believe that it would be very good if someone would be linked to a specific mentor. I do not have that right now. For instance, tomorrow I have to work again, and then I look who is there and some I probably already know, and yes then you know how or what, but for re-entering nurses, I believe it is incredibly important to have a specific person to whom you could go with questions and other struggles.” (re-entering nurse in rehabilitation centre) R1
Training
The extent to which the re-entering nurses had received training varied greatly amongst all participants in all settings. Three re-entering nurses working in hospital settings mentioned to have received training in a skills lab and the opportunity to do e-learnings. All three participants reported being content with their received training. Contrarily, seven participants declared to have not received any kind of training prior to their return, and the majority of the other participants said that they only had the opportunity to perform (mostly non-obligatory) e-learnings. Some participants mentioned getting a short orientation of the department, instructions on how to wear PPE and how to turn COVID-19 patients in the prone position. Overall participants said that it was unrealistic to wish for a complete training prior to their return, considering the circumstances of the pandemic.
“There was no time to do so; there really was not. Everyone was in an uproar and the nurses who could have done this were all working, so it was take-it-or-leave-it”. (Participant buddy at ICU) R11
A few participants mentioned faring well in their position despite the lack of training. Participants in supporting roles often mentioned being still knowledgeable in basic nursing actions, such as providing personal care, for example, assisting in washing, getting dressed and eating and communication.
“I did not experience that as something I missed. Absolutely not, because it was just like riding a bicycle; basic care is something that you do not forget, I could do that.” (Participant at nursing home) R6
Training content
Nevertheless, when participants were asked about an ideal returners programme to be prepared for their return into nursing, some general wishes did derive. Most returners said that a theoretical training programme was unnecessary, yet mentioned the need to refresh their practical nursing skills. Furthermore, participants mentioned missing an orientation concerning the basic working methods of the departments, such as the daily routines and electronic patient records. Another common view amongst participants is that training must align with the individual level of the returner and should be based upon specific skills or knowledge that need some repetition. Many re-entering nurses mentioned that returners should not be treated as new students, whereas they carry their own life experiences and have obtained other useful skills over time.
“Returners are people who often have quite some life-experience. It would be nice if training relates to this, so they do not have to do everything by default, but where you look at what someone needs. I have been out of the running for 28 years, but someone who was only absent for five years needs entirely something else.” (Participant at nursing home) R1
Additionally, some needs concerning training varied per healthcare setting. Several re-entering nurses at ICUs mentioned encountering situations in which they struggled with treatments, protocols and medical equipment such as ventilators and monitors that had been changed. Meanwhile, those who re-entered in a nursing home setting mentioned encountering innovative patient-lifts systems and electronic devices such as thermometers which they were unfamiliar with.
“I think that for the technical procedures, they should have included a moment in the beginning to show the devices. For example, the thermometer that you hold against your head, you know? Yes that is for example something that I had not done before and I did not know.” (Participant at COVID-19 department within nursing home setting) R9
Positive team dynamic
The majority of the re-entering nurses said that there was a positive team dynamic within the departments as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. The recruitment of many different (former) health professionals from a variety of backgrounds led to diverse and sometimes new teams. Some participants explained that it was challenging to get acquainted with each other as a team, due to the hectic pace of the COVID-19 pandemic and covering PPE. However, despite the variety within teams, participants often mentioned experiencing strong commitment and solidarity within teams to counter the challenges of the pandemic collectively. Several re-entering nurses said that the pressure to combat a novel emerging disease resulted in a shared vision and the need to collectively focus towards shared results, which resulted in positive team dynamics.
“Something that I really liked was that you are part of the team right away, the solidarity was there from day one, so that is how I experienced it. And you can see that everyone is trying their best, and it might be a little stressful, but it is all from a good heart. So that is beautiful to see and that you are part of that is very cool that you do it together.” (Participant at a COVID-19 department within a nursing home setting) R10
One participant did mention that at certain moments the buddy system led to situations in which he felt less included. According to this participant, the current system sometimes created a pecking order amongst buddies.
“For example, a colleague said, ‘I am fine with taking care of that patient, but then I do want a good buddy.’ The room was filled with all the buddies, so when they picked someone, you knew that was a good buddy, and the rest was rubbish. You have to imagine that you are completely dressed up with a mask and eye protection, and then that is being said. I could not comprehend it.” (Participant buddy at ICU) R7
Mental health
Several nurses who directly worked with COVID-19 patients did experience the pandemic as an intense and sometimes emotional period. Participants explained that the unpredictable clinical picture of COVID-19 and the confrontation with the passing of patients was overwhelming. Additionally, the longer working hours, extra shifts, and the uncertainty of the course of the pandemic was described as demanding by some re-entering nurses. Few participants mentioned fearing contamination with COVID-19 and said to be especially concerned for their family. In these cases working in protective equipment and continuously being aware of possible cross-contamination was experienced as stressful and demanding.
“At that moment, it did not really hit me, but then I got back, took a shower, and I wanted to go to sleep, but I could not fall asleep; I was restless. The next day my husband was going for a walk with my daughter, and I was home alone. I took the newspaper, and I saw an obituary with such a beautiful poem. I read the poem, and I started to bawl, like bawling and I bawled my eyes out, all emotions came out. That obituary triggered me, and that is when it hit me. That paper with five pages of obituaries, all from villages in (name of a province). Yes, that did something to me.” (Participant at COVID-19 department in nursing home setting) R5
However, despite these findings, nearly all participants mentioned that the re-entering process did not lead to the impairment of their mental health. In contrast, some participants even mentioned that their re-entry had improved their mental health. Re-entering nurses said that they enjoyed their role, the contact with patients and were happy to contribute in a time of need. Moreover, participants mentioned feeling appreciated. The nursing departments received words of support, free food, care packages and even massage chairs. Additionally, some participants mentioned experiencing less pressure due to responsibility because of the supporting nature of their role.
“It really did not affect me negatively. We were all just very combative, we all went for it, and that has all just been very positive. No, I did not burn-out or became very stressed because of this. On the contrary, I thought it was a cool period actually.” (Respondent buddy at ICU) R11, Q17
Mental health support
Even though mental health support was facilitated in the form of counselling by psychologists for those of whom worked with COVID-19 patients, nearly all participants explained that they did not feel the need to use this possibility. Most participants mentioned being able to cope with their mental health independently. Some returners mentioned discussing their experiences with family members, while others declared to frequently sit together with colleagues to evaluate and support each other.
“ If we were wearing those protecting suits, then we could hold on to each other. Yes, outside of course we could not, but on the ward, we had those protecting suits and then we would hold on to each other for a bit. The beautiful thing was that even though no one knew each other in this department, we could shed a tear together. That gave a wonderful feeling.” (Participant at COVID-19 department within nursing home setting) R5, Q18
Discussion
This qualitative study investigated experiences and needs of former nurses who re-entered during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands.
We showed that a lack of a clear job description with operationalised roles, responsibilities and restrictions sometimes led to unclarity about role division and the scope of practice and deviating expectations amongst returners and healthcare staff. This unclarity was especially notable in the newly established COVID-19 departments. Participants mentioned that due to the rapid establishment of the departments and the new teams, a structured working mechanism was not yet established. In all settings, re-entering nurses said that the fulfilment of roles was closely related to the extent to which they felt comfortable and proficient, and participants emphasised the importance of protecting their boundaries. Subsequently, participants mentioned that they often decided to take a more supportive position. However, in some cases, the uncertainty on occupational boundaries led to re-entering nurses executing reserved procedures that are normally considered to be reserved for up-to-date educated registered nurses. This is in line with the findings of Liberati (2017) and Xyrichis (2017) who observed an increase in informal crossing of boundaries due to work urgency, such as during a pandemic. Even though this does not necessarily have to lead to the impairment of quality of healthcare, it is a risk that blurred demarcation between roles leads to the informal shifting of tasks beyond the scope of practice of lay healthcare workers (Callaghan et al., 2010). In the same light, historical research on the influenza pandemic of 1918-1919 in New-Zealand showed that nursing staff perceived vague boundaries between lay nurses who were employed during the pandemic and the professional nursing staff as a threat to the quality of care (Wood, 2017). A transparent description of roles and the associated competencies is essential to create clarity on one’s responsibilities and accountability (World Health Organisation, 2008; Munga et al., 2012; Zachariah et al., 2009; Callaghan et al., 2010; ledikwe et al., 2013).
The results of this study further indicated the usefulness of an easily accessible mentorship structure for re-entering nurses based on a collaborative approach between, for instance, experienced nurses and those who re-entered. We found that former nurses in a buddy role who were linked to other nurses were especially content about the accessibility of guidance. Supervision is a well-known essential factor for the retainment of nurses and having the opportunity to consult with a mentor increases confidence and competences (Durand & Randhawa, 2002; Long & West, 2007; Mark & Gupta, 2002; Myall et al., 2008; Pellatt, 2013). Moreover, research on nursing at a COVID-19 ICU with an implemented buddy system reported the approachable mentorship of experienced ICU nurses to be a valuable model to guide nurses who are normally not employed in ICU settings (Marks et al., 2020).
Further, our findings indicate the need for an individualised and mainly practical training program for re-entering nurses, harmonised with their current level of competences and knowledge disparities to become skilled enough to assist in nursing (during a pandemic). The majority of the participants had received a limited amount of training to master complex nursing procedures due to their rapid return, which seemed partly dependent on the healthcare setting where they re-entered. Re-entering nurses come from different backgrounds, therefore obtain different levels of experience in nursing. Yet, most re-entering nurses mentioned that they were still able to perform basic nursing care, such as supporting patients with personal hygiene, clothing and eating, despite the numerous years of not practising. In line with the findings of this study, literature shows that re-entering nurses do not want to be approached as new nurses; hence like to be appreciated for the skills they already possess (Barriball et al., 2007).
The situation of the pandemic led to a shared vision and purposeful collaborative teamwork which created positive team dynamics, despite the divergent backgrounds of the team members. Participants mentioned that the pressure to combat a novel emerging disease resulted in the need to focus towards shared results collectively. This finding was also identified in previous research on nursing during healthcare crises, in which measures of appreciation, support and feelings of unity led to a high working moral (Renke et al., 2020; Corley et al., 2010; Biai, 2007). Moreover, Shih et al., (2002) showed that sharing the experience of providing care after the earthquake of 1999 in Taiwan and the urgent need to help each other, led to a caring relationship amongst team members.
The participants said that the negative impact of returning during the COVID-19 pandemic on their mental health was limited. In line with literature, some former nurses who were exposed to infected patients experienced the pandemic as an overwhelming, emotional, uncertain and demanding period (Lai et al., 2020). However, contrary to expectations, nearly all participants in this study reported that re-entering in these circumstances did not lead to the impairment of mental health. Several factors might have influenced the limited impact of re-entering during a pandemic on the mental health of re-entering nurses. Firstly, most re-entering nurses had supporting roles during their re-entry; consequently, some participants said that they experienced less pressure of responsibility. Furthermore, many participants mentioned experiencing solidarity within teams and strong team coherence. Literature shows that a sense of coherence and social support in the workplace could function as a protecting factor for one’s mental health (Greenberg et al., 2020.; Malinauskien et al., 2009; Wats et al., 2013). Moreover, most re-entering nurses mentioned feeling appreciated. During the pandemic nurses were supported by kind words and gestures of food and gifts by their environment. Research shows that a culture of appreciation in the workplace decreases the chances of burnout (Maslach & Leiter, 2017). Nevertheless, we should take into consideration the possible long-term psychological consequences of re-entering during a pandemic. Most re-entering nurses had not returned to practise for longer than two months at the time of the interview. It is questionable if prolonged exposure to working during a pandemic with multiple waves will increase the risk of impaired mental health. Research on COVID-19 and literature on previous pandemics show that a high number of healthcare workers experience severe mental health issues as a consequence of working on the frontlines of disease outbreaks (Khalid et al., 2016; Maunder et al., 2003; Pappa et al., 2020).
Strengths and limitations
The main strength of this study is that the collection of data was executed during the COVID-19 pandemic, while participants were still working as a returner or had only just resigned, which decreased the chances of recall bias. Moreover, the topic is urgent and we provided important insights in the experiences of re-entering nurses.
For this study, we chose to include former nurses who re-entered in different healthcare settings. Due to the small number of re-entering nurses per healthcare setting, we were only able to identify main themes that generally apply to re-entering nurses during a pandemic, while full saturation on sub-themes for each specific setting was not achieved.
Recommendations for future research
The perspective of current healthcare staff working with re-entering nurses is an essential topic for future research, considering the influences of re-entering of nurses during a pandemic on current healthcare staff. Mentoring, supervising and correctly assessing the proficiency of re-entering nurses during the already hectic circumstances of a pandemic, might be very straining on current healthcare staff.
Conclusion
The rapid need for former nurses to return in times of the COVID-19 pandemic led to limited time to prepare and establish a structured re-entering process. These circumstances often cause uncertainty about roles and responsibilities amongst re-entering nurses. This was especially challenging in the newly established COVID-19 wards within nursing home settings, while the process appeared less uncertain and chaotic within highly-structured organisations, such as at ICUs in hospitals. However, despite the challenges of the re-entering process, the re-entering nurses maintained an open-minded and flexible attitude. The situation of the pandemic led to purposeful collaborative teamwork, and re-entering nurses generally did not report negative impact on their mental health. The results of this study indicate that the following is needed to support a rapid and safe return: a clear description of roles and responsibilities; an individualised assessment determining the competences and knowledge disparities of re-entering nurses; practical training focussing on competencies needed during a pandemic; and a responsive mentorship structure to guide re-entering nurses.
Relevance to clinical practise
In light of the current ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and possible emerging new pandemics in the future, it is essential to consider strategies to rapidly increase health care capacity. The rapid recruitment of former nurses to mitigate an acute shortage of qualified nurses could play a vital role during the current and future pandemics. In order to ensure the quality of healthcare, prevent problems and protect employability and resilience of re-entering nurses, this research provides insights into the re-entering process and addresses the needs of re-entering nurses during a pandemic.
Data Availability
Transcripts are not available due to traceable information to individuals and institutions.
Conflict of Interest Statement
All authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Funding or Sources of Support
This research did not receive any form of funding, nor sources of support
Contributions
Study design: TH, MOK, SAN Data collection: SAN
Data analysis: TH, MOK, SAN Manuscript preparations: TH, MOK, SAN
Acknowledgements
The authors thank all re-entering nurses who participated in the interviews for participating in this study
Appendix 1
Appendix one provides the conceptual background that was used for this research. While the COVID-19 pandemic provides a unique situation, we drew inspiration from existing literature on nursing during a pandemic, and re-entering nurses, which offered relevant insights for the development of the study protocol, an interview guide and data collection.
Training
Former nurses re-entering during a pandemic need to rapidly update existing knowledge and competencies and develop new ones to become proficient in nursing during a pandemic. Research shows the need for former nurses to be aware of infection control principles and be agile in the use of personal protection equipment (PPE) (Chan & Wong, 2007; Irvin et al., 2008; Martin, 2011; McMullan et al., 2016). Nurses are the primary caregivers of vulnerable and susceptible patients and are in close contact with diseased patients. Therefore, nurses must have the knowledge to recognise and screen for possibly infected patients (Chan & Wong, 2007; Martin, 2011). Additionally, Research on re-entering nurses shows that former nurses prefer practically oriented and training focussing on competencies that are needed to work at a specific department (Durand & Randhawa, 2002; Long & West, 2007).
Role division
Less qualified nurses rapidly re-enter care, which could create unclarity about the division of roles. Existing literature on task-shifting implies that unclarity on the division of roles often led to friction between healthcare workers; the hierarchy changed, since it became obscure who was responsible for what tasks (Callaghan et al., 2010). Zachariah et al. (2009) showed that not all healthcare workers felt comfortable with the additional supervisory responsibilities and the delegation of tasks due to task-shifting.
Additionally, unclarity on roles may lead to quality issues. Key-findings from an evaluating study on task-shifting in Botswana revealed tasks-shifting workers often performed more activities than they were educated and commissioned for (Ledikwe et al., 2013). A clear demarcation of responsibilities, tasks and boundaries including the advice of the involved health workers could substantiate the process of task-shifting (Callaghan et al., 2010; Ledikwe et al., 2013; Zachariah et al., (2009).
Supervision & support
Former nurses who rapidly re-entered into care with limited preparation time to master complex nursing tasks and in times of a pandemic are in need of sufficient supervision Research on the H1N1 influenza pandemic showed that junior nurses who had to rapidly skill-up in order be able to provide a high number of patients of advanced therapy, experienced feelings of anxiousness and stress due to a lack of supervision (Corley et al., 2010). Moreover, Mark and Gupta (2002), mentioned the lack of supervision as one of the main challenges for re-entering nurses. Research has observed re-entering nurses often worried about their competences or felt as if they were thrown into the deep end (Durand & Randhawa, 2002; Mark & Gupta, 2002)
Mental health needs
Several studies have postulated about the adverse psychological effects of nursing during the COVID-19 pandemic (Kang et al., 2020; Lai et al., 2020; Zhu & Xu et al., 2020). Research indicates that nurses responding to the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan China often experienced anxiety and stress, which was associated with the long working hours, extra work pressure, close contact with infected patients and the lack of PPE (Lai et al., 2020; Zhu & Xu et al., 2020). A key factor contributing to fear amongst nurses was spreading of the disease amongst colleagues and family members and the increasing number of deaths (Lai et al., 2020; Zhu & Xu et al., 2020).
Private life
Providing care during a pandemic could have a demanding influence on the personal life of former nurses. Existing research on the preparedness for an influenza pandemic recognised worries amongst nurses about shortages in staff, leading to a demand to work extra shifts and longer hours (McMullan et al., 2016). Moreover, research showed that nurses worried about exposing their environment to an increased risk of infection (McMullan et al.,2016; Corley et al., 2010). In two additional analyses of the willingness to work during a pandemic in America, nurses mentioned similar worries (Irvin et al., 2008; Martin, 2011). As a solution, McMullan et al. (2016) noted the importance of available resources and information to reassure nurses and their families.
Appendix 2
Appendix two contains the interview guide that was used during data collection.
The following questions were asked during the recruitment of participants to assure a varying sample of former nurses working in different settings.
What is your age?
What is your profession?
How many years of experience do you have as a nurse?
In which department(s) and in what kind of institution(s) (hospital, nursing home, home care etc.) did you work?
Did you follow any nursing specialisations? If so: what is your nursing specialty?
In what year did you stop working as a nurse?
Were you BIG registered at the time of your re-entry into nursing?
In which department and in what kind of institution are you working momentarily as a nurse?
How long have you been back in nursing practise again?
Appendix 3
Appendix three contains the coding scheme that was used to analyse data, categorised on themes, subcodes and codes.
Appendix 4
In appendix four we elaborate on the BIG-law, reserved nursing procedures and legislation regarding nursing in the Netherlands during the COVID-19 pandemic.
To create clarity on the authorisation of medical procedures and to protect health professionals and patients from incompetence, the act on Professions in Individual Healthcare (‘BIG’ law) was formed (Wet Beroepen Individuele Gezondheid, 1993) in the Netherlands. This law includes a register of all qualified health professionals within individual healthcare and describes legal jurisdiction to execute specific medical activities (reserved procedures). Nurses acquire a BIG-registration when they have obtained a degree in nursing and must validate their registration every five years (ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport (VWS), 2020b; Wijmen et al., 1993). Validation can be done through the verification of at least 2080 hours of working experience within the individual healthcare in the previous five years or by passing a national re-registration exam. If nurses do not meet the requirements, they are no longer authorised to carry the title of a registered nurse, and all legal obligations and rights lapse (VWS, 2020b).
In the Netherlands, an existing grey area in the BIG law creates a possibility for former nurses to contribute to nursing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Registered nurses can delegate activities under specific conditions: nurses must guarantee proper supervision; be able to intervene if needed; and be able to assume that the person to whom the tasks are delegated, has the appropriate skills and knowledge (Wet Beroepen Individuele Gezondheid, 1993, §4, article 38).
Moreover, to accommodate the demand for extra qualified nurses during the pandemic within a short time-frame, the Dutch Ministry of Health made temporary adjustments in regulations (VWS, 2020a; Bruins, 2020). Firstly, all BIG re-register obligations for current health professionals were suspended until further notice. Secondly, former nurses whose BIG-registration expired after 1 January 2018 are temporarily allowed to work as a nurse without the requirements to re-register (VWS, 2020a; Bruins, 2020).
References appendix 4
References
