Shining a light on an additional clinical burden: work-related digital communication survey study – COVID-19 impact on NHS staff wellbeing

Work-related communication volume within the United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS) has had little systematic research previously. The impact of communication volume on work-life balance of healthcare staff in the NHS is also not known and has not been an area of focus or governance. COVID-19 led to a shift to non-physical work, with greater reliance on digital communication for clinical decision making. We sought to elucidate the relationship between communication, work-life balance, and COVID-19. An online survey was conducted to assess the platforms used to communicate professionally, the volume of and time spent on work-related communications, how this has changed from before to during COVID-19, and the effect on work-life balance. A total of 3047 healthcare staff provided consent and evaluable data. Emails were reported as the most frequently used communication tool, and the majority of staff asked, reported increased work-related communications due to COVID-19. Staff estimated receiving 14 emails on an average day before COVID-19. During the pandemic, staff estimated getting approximately 17 emails on an average day and 29 emails on a busy day. Work communications reportedly took up increased amounts of family and home time during COVID-19. A large proportion (36%) of staff were unable to switch off from work-related communications already before COVID-19, worsening (57%) during the pandemic. Work-related digital communication is a vital component of working in the NHS. We provide the first detailed data on the types, volume, and impact of such communication on NHS staff during the COVID-19 pandemic, compared to pre-pandemic levels. We found that 82% of staff support the need for NHS guidance on work-related communications to help manage overload, protect emotional wellbeing, and increase resilience. Further work is urgently needed in this area to tackle the negative impact of communication technologies (technostress) on work-life balance to reduce staff stress, burnout, and turnover or early retirement of some staff

Patients with artificial joints: do they need antibiotic cover for dental treatment?

The document attached has been archived with permission from the Australian Dental Association. An external link to the publisher’s copy is included.This study reviews whether patients with artificial joints need antibiotic cover for dental treatment. Generally in Australia the practice has developed of giving most patients with artificial joints antibiotic prophylaxis for a wide range of dental procedures. This is partly on anecdotal grounds, partly historical and partly for legal concerns. It has been encouraged by some guidelines. Scientifically, the risk and the benefit of each step in the process needs to be analysed. This review shows that the risk of an artificial joint becoming infected from a bacteraemia of oral origin is exceedingly low whereas the risk of an adverse reaction to the antibiotic prophylaxis is higher than the risk of infection. If all patients with artificial joints receive antibiotic prophylaxis then more will die from anaphylaxis than develop infections. Factors which balance the risk benefit are if the patient is seriously immunocompromised, if the joint prosthesis is failing or chronically inflamed and if the dental procedures, such as from extractions and deep periodontal scaling, produce high level bacteraemias. Recommendations to rationalize antibiotic prophylaxis for patients with artificial joints are presented.JF Scott, D Morgan, M Avent, S Graves and AN Gos