Migrant healthcare workers during COVID-19: bringing an intersectional health system-related approach into pandemic protection. A German case study

IntroductionMigrant healthcare workers played an important role during the COVID-19 pandemic, but data are lacking especially for high-resourced European healthcare systems. This study aims to research migrant healthcare workers through an intersectional health system-related approach, using Germany as a case study.MethodsAn intersectional research framework was created and a rapid scoping study performed. Secondary analysis of selected items taken from two COVID-19 surveys was undertaken to compare perceptions of national and foreign-born healthcare workers, using descriptive statistics.ResultsAvailable research is focused on worst-case pandemic scenarios of Brazil and the United Kingdom, highlighting racialised discrimination and higher risks of migrant healthcare workers. The German data did not reveal significant differences between national-born and foreign-born healthcare workers for items related to health status including SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination, and perception of infection risk, protective workplace measures, and government measures, but items related to social participation and work conditions with higher infection risk indicate a higher burden of migrant healthcare workers.ConclusionsCOVID-19 pandemic policy must include migrant healthcare workers, but simply adding the migration status is not enough. We introduce an intersectional health systems-related approach to understand how pandemic policies create social inequalities and how the protection of migrant healthcare workers may be improved

Studies on the second victim phenomenon and other related topics in the pan-European environment : the experience of ERNST Consortium members

Background: Patient safety is a priority worldwide. When things go wrong in the provision of patient care, the healthcare professionals involved can be psychologically affected (second victims, SVs). Recently, different initiatives have been launched to address this phenomenon.Aim: To identify through the ERNST Pan-European Consortium the current study lines in Europe on SVs and other topics related to how the lack of well-being of healthcare professionals can affect the quality of care.Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted based on an ad hoc online survey. All 82 academics and clinicians who had formalized their membership to the COST Action 19113 by September 2020 and represented 27 European and one neighboring country were invited to participate. The survey consisted of 19 questions that explored the participants’ scientific profile, their interests, and previous experiences in the SVs’ topic, and related areas of work in Europe.Results: Seventy (85.4%) COST Action members responded to the survey. Thirty-seven (37.1%) had conducted SV studies in the past or were doing so at the moment of the survey. Seventeen participants were involved in implementing interventions to support SVs. Future lines of study included legal issues, open disclosure, training programs, and patient safety curricula.Conclusions: Studies have been conducted in Europe on the magnitude of the SV phenomenon and the usefulness of some techniques to promote resilience among healthcare professionals. New gaps have been identified. The COST Action 19113 aims to foster European collaboration to reinforce the healthcare professionals’ well-being and thus contribute to patient safety.peer-reviewe

The European Researchers’ Network Working on Second Victim (ERNST) policy statement on the second victim phenomenon for increasing patient safety

Publisher Copyright: Copyright © 2024 Mira, Carillo, Tella, Vanhaecht, Panella, Seys, Ungureanu, Sousa, Buttigieg, Vella-Bonanno, Popovici, Srulovici, Guerra-Paiva, Knezevic, Lorenzo, Lachman, Ushiro, Scott, Wu and Strametz.Background: The second victim phenomenon refers to the emotional trauma healthcare professionals experience following adverse events (AEs) in patient care, which can compromise their ability to provide safe care. This issue has significant implications for patient safety, with AEs leading to substantial human and economic costs. Analysis: Current evidence indicates that AEs often result from systemic failures, profoundly affecting healthcare workers. While patient safety initiatives are in place, the psychological impact on healthcare professionals remains inadequately addressed. The European Researchers’ Network Working on Second Victims (ERNST) emphasizes the need to support these professionals through peer support programs, systemic changes, and a shift toward a just culture in healthcare settings. Policy Options: Key options include implementing peer support programs, revising the legal framework to decriminalize honest errors, and promoting just culture principles. These initiatives aim to mitigate the second victim phenomenon, enhance patient safety, and reduce healthcare costs. Conclusion: Addressing the second victim phenomenon is essential for ensuring patient safety. By implementing supportive policies and fostering a just culture, healthcare systems can better manage the repercussions of AEs and support the wellbeing of healthcare professionals.publishersversionpublishe

The European researchers’ network working on second victim (ERNST) policy statement on the second victim phenomenon for increasing patient safety

Background: The second victim phenomenon refers to the emotional trauma healthcare professionals experience following adverse events (AEs) in patient care, which can compromise their ability to provide safe care. This issue has significant implications for patient safety, with AEs leading to substantial human and economic costs. Analysis: Current evidence indicates that AEs often result from systemic failures, profoundly affecting healthcare workers. While patient safety initiatives are in place, the psychological impact on healthcare professionals remains inadequately addressed. The European Researchers’ Network Working on Second Victims (ERNST) emphasizes the need to support these professionals through peer support programs, systemic changes, and a shift toward a just culture in healthcare settings. Policy Options: Key options include implementing peer support programs, revising the legal framework to decriminalize honest errors, and promoting just culture principles. These initiatives aim to mitigate the second victim phenomenon, enhance patient safety, and reduce healthcare costs. Conclusion: Addressing the second victim phenomenon is essential for ensuring patient safety. By implementing supportive policies and fostering a just culture, healthcare systems can better manage the repercussions of AEs and support the wellbeing of healthcare professionals.peer-reviewe

Strategies for the psychological support of the healthcare workforce during the COVID-19 pandemic : the ERNST study

The COVID-19 pandemic led to the implementation of interventions to provide emotional and psychological support to healthcare workers in many countries. This ecological study aims to describe the strategies implemented in different countries to support healthcare professionals during the outbreak. Data were collected through an online survey about the measures to address the impact of the pandemic on the mental health of healthcare workers. Healthcare professionals, researchers, and academics were invited to respond to the survey. Fifty-six professionals from 35 countries contributed data to this study. Ten countries (28.6%) reported that they did not launch any national interventions. Both developed and developing countries launched similar initiatives. There was no relationship between the existence of any type of initiative in a country with the incidence, lethality, and mortality rates of the country due to COVID-19, and per capita income in 2020. The 24 h hotline for psychological support was the most frequent intervention. Tools for self-rescue by using apps or websites were extensively used, too. Other common interventions were the development of action protocols, availability of regular and updated information, implantation of distance learning systems, early detection of infection programs for professionals, economic reinforcements, hiring of staff reinforcement, and modification of leave and vacation dates.peer-reviewe

Health workforce protection and preparedness during the COVID-19 pandemic: a tool for the rapid assessment of EU health systems

Abstract This article is dedicated to the WHO International Year of Health and Care Workers in 2021 in recognition of their commitment during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study aims to strengthen health workforce preparedness, protection and ultimately resilience during a pandemic. We argue for a health system approach and introduce a tool for rapid comparative assessment based on integrated multi-level governance. We draw on secondary sources and expert information, including material from Denmark, Germany, Portugal and Romania. The results reveal similar developments across countries: action has been taken to improve physical protection, digitalization and prioritization of healthcare worker vaccination, whereas social and mental health support programmes were weak or missing. Developments were more diverse in relation to occupational and organizational preparedness: some ad-hoc transformations of work routines and tasks were observed in all countries, yet skill-mix innovation and collaboration were strongest in Demark and weak in Portugal and Romania. Major governance gaps exist in relation to education and health integration, surveillance, social and mental health support programmes, gendered issues of health workforce capacity and integration of migrant healthcare workers (HCW). There is a need to step up efforts and make health systems more accountable to the needs of HCW during global public health emergencies.Abstract This article is dedicated to the WHO International Year of Health and Care Workers in 2021 in recognition of their commitment during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study aims to strengthen health workforce preparedness, protection and ultimately resilience during a pandemic. We argue for a health system approach and introduce a tool for rapid comparative assessment based on integrated multi-level governance. We draw on secondary sources and expert information, including material from Denmark, Germany, Portugal and Romania. The results reveal similar developments across countries: action has been taken to improve physical protection, digitalization and prioritization of healthcare worker vaccination, whereas social and mental health support programmes were weak or missing. Developments were more diverse in relation to occupational and organizational preparedness: some ad-hoc transformations of work routines and tasks were observed in all countries, yet skill-mix innovation and collaboration were strongest in Demark and weak in Portugal and Romania. Major governance gaps exist in relation to education and health integration, surveillance, social and mental health support programmes, gendered issues of health workforce capacity and integration of migrant healthcare workers (HCW). There is a need to step up efforts and make health systems more accountable to the needs of HCW during global public health emergencies

The mental health needs of healthcare workers:When evidence does not guide policy. A comparative assessment of selected European countries

Background: The healthcare workforce (HCWF) globally is facing high stress levels and deteriorating mental health due to workplace, labour market and policy deficiencies that further exacerbate the existing crisis. However, comprehensive and effective action is missing. Aims: We adopt a health system and governance perspective to address the mental health needs of healthcare workers (HCWs), considering the nature of interventions and the levels and actors involved in governance. The aim is to move the debate forward by identifying governance gaps hampering the implementation of health workforce policies and exploring strategies to effectively increase mental health support. Material and Methods: A qualitative comparative methodology is applied based on a case study design utilising a multi-level intersectoral governance matrix. We conducted a rapid assessment of HCWF developments in the European context (Germany, Portugal, Romania, Switzerland and the United Kingdom), drawing on secondary sources and country experts. Results and Discussion: Awareness of mental health threats among HCWs increased, but policy discourse is driven by service delivery and labour market demands. The attention to HCWs' needs is stronger on the international level and weakest at national/regional levels. Although organisations and professions demonstrate varying degrees of activity, their efforts are scattered and lack sustainability. Similar challenges were identified across healthcare systems, including limited action, disconnected actors, missing coordination, and a lack of attention to governance gaps and system weaknesses. Conclusion: Adopting a health system approach is important but not sufficient. Successful mental health policy implementation needs multi-level governance and coherent coordination mechanisms.</p