Display options
Share it on

BMJ Open. 2021 Mar 22;11(3):e050223. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050223.

Beyond PPE: a mixed qualitative-quantitative study capturing the wider issues affecting doctors' well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BMJ open

Lyndsey Jayne Cubitt, Yu Ri Im, Ciaran James Scott, Louise Claire Jeynes, Paul David Molyneux

Affiliations

  1. Dept of Anaesthetics, West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust, Bury Saint Edmunds, UK.
  2. Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
  3. Dept of Medicine, West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust, Bury Saint Edmunds, UK.
  4. Neurology, West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust, Bury Saint Edmunds, UK [email protected].
  5. Department of Neurology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK.

PMID: 33753449 PMCID: PMC7985981 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050223

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented challenges to the medical workforce. This has put them at increased risk of burnout at a time when levels are already worryingly high in the profession, with recent studies consistently showing that around half of doctors meet the validated criteria for burnout.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the wider factors influencing and impacting upon hospital doctors' well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic in England.

DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey and mixed quantitative-qualitative analysis.

SETTING: Acute National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust in England.

PARTICIPANTS: An online survey was circulated in early June 2020 to all 449 doctors employed by the Trust. 242 doctors completed the survey (54% response rate).

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Questions assessed occupational details, self-reported changes in physical and mental health, satisfaction with working hours and patterns, availability of personal protective equipment (PPE), medication and facilities, communication and sought to identify areas seen as having a significant effect on doctors' well-being.

RESULTS: 96% of respondents requiring PPE were able to access it. Nearly half of the respondents felt that their mental health had deteriorated since the start of the pandemic. Over a third stated that their physical health had also declined. Issues identified as having a negative impact on doctors included increased workload, redeployment, loss of autonomy, personal issues affecting family members, anxiety around recovery plans, inadequate access to changing and storage facilities and to rest areas that allow for social distancing. Doctors appreciated access to 'calm rooms' that were made available for staff, access to clinical psychology support, free drinks and free car parking on site.

CONCLUSION: The emerging themes are suggestive of increased burnout risk among doctors during the COVID-19 pandemic and encompass factors well beyond shortage of PPE. Small organisational initiatives and the implementation of changes suggested by survey respondents can have a positive impact on doctors' well-being.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Keywords: COVID-19; mental health; occupational & industrial medicine

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: LJC, YRI, CJS, LCJ and PDM were employed by the Trust at the time the survey was undertaken and declare no further competing interests.

References

  1. BMJ Open. 2020 Jul 31;10(7):e039832 - PubMed
  2. BMJ Open. 2020 Jan 27;10(1):e031765 - PubMed
  3. BMJ. 2020 Mar 31;368:m1316 - PubMed
  4. Open Med (Wars). 2018 Jul 04;13:253-263 - PubMed
  5. J Intern Med. 2018 Jun;283(6):516-529 - PubMed
  6. BMJ. 2019 Feb 21;364:l848 - PubMed
  7. Front Psychol. 2020 Jul 10;11:1684 - PubMed
  8. JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Feb 1;177(2):195-205 - PubMed
  9. J Health Hum Serv Adm. 1999 Spring;21(4):472-89 - PubMed
  10. N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 6;383(6):510-512 - PubMed
  11. Mayo Clin Proc. 2017 Jan;92(1):129-146 - PubMed
  12. Ann Surg. 2009 Sep;250(3):463-71 - PubMed
  13. BMJ. 2020 Mar 24;368:m1150 - PubMed
  14. BMC Med. 2004 Aug 18;2:29 - PubMed
  15. Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395(10229):1022 - PubMed
  16. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020 Jun;8(6):1781-1790.e3 - PubMed
  17. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2020 Jul;60(1):e60-e65 - PubMed
  18. Mayo Clin Proc. 2015 Dec;90(12):1600-13 - PubMed
  19. Brain Behav Immun. 2020 Aug;88:901-907 - PubMed
  20. BMJ. 2020 May 22;369:m2055 - PubMed
  21. N Engl J Med. 2020 Jun 25;382(26):2485-2487 - PubMed
  22. Lancet. 2016 Nov 5;388(10057):2272-2281 - PubMed
  23. BMJ Open. 2019 Nov 25;9(11):e030968 - PubMed
  24. CJEM. 2020 Sep;22(5):603-607 - PubMed
  25. Pain Physician. 2020 Aug;23(4S):S271-S282 - PubMed
  26. Lancet. 2009 Nov 14;374(9702):1714-21 - PubMed
  27. BMJ Open. 2018 Jul 23;8(7):e018720 - PubMed
  28. BMJ. 2020 Apr 17;369:m1562 - PubMed
  29. Acad Med. 2014 Mar;89(3):443-51 - PubMed
  30. BMJ Open. 2019 May 15;9(5):e027362 - PubMed
  31. BMJ Open. 2019 Sep 5;9(9):e030209 - PubMed
  32. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007 Nov;14(11):3043-53 - PubMed
  33. Psychother Psychosom. 2020;89(4):252-254 - PubMed
  34. JAMA. 2011 Sep 7;306(9):952-60 - PubMed
  35. Ger Med Sci. 2020 Jun 22;18:Doc05 - PubMed
  36. Med Hypotheses. 2020 Nov;144:109972 - PubMed
  37. BJPsych Bull. 2017 Aug;41(4):197-204 - PubMed
  38. BMJ. 2020 Apr 6;369:m1379 - PubMed
  39. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2020 Jul;24(14):7869-7879 - PubMed
  40. PLoS One. 2020 Aug 6;15(8):e0237301 - PubMed
  41. Ann Intensive Care. 2020 Aug 8;10(1):110 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types