The impact of covid-19 pandemic on urgent endoscopy in Italy: a nation-wide multicenter study

Abstract

Objective: COVID-19 pandemic has seriously affected Italy. Radical changes occurred in the Italian NHS and thus in GI departments, as only urgent endoscopies were guaranteed. The study aimed to report how the demand for urgent endoscopy changed during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy and to evaluate the appropriateness of urgent referrals in the Endoscopy Unit.

Material and methods: Nation-wide, cross-sectional survey study in 54 Italian GI Units. Data were collected regarding urgent endoscopies (EGD, CS, ERCP) in two different time periods: March 2019 and March 2020.

Results: Thirty-five (64.8%) GI endoscopy Units responded to the survey. The entity of reduction of overall urgent EGDs and CSs performed in March 2020 versus March 2019 was statistically significant: 541 versus 974 (?80%), p?<?.001 for EGD and 171 versus 265 (?55%), p?<?.008, for CS, respectively. No statistically significant reduction of urgent ERCP performed in March 2020 versus March 2019 was found. The increase in overall diagnostic yield for urgent EGD in March 2020 versus March 2019 was 7.3% (CI [0.028–0.117], p?=?.001). No statistically significant difference in diagnostic yield for CS between 2019 and 2020 was found.

Conclusion: The study showed a statistically significant reduction of urgent EGD and CS performed during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, in March 2020, compared to March 2019. The diagnostic yield of urgent EGD performed in March 2020 was significantly higher than that of March 2019. No statistically significant difference was found in terms of diagnostic yield of urgent CS between March 2020 and March 2019.     

Lessons learned from urgent computing in Europe: Tackling the COVID-19 pandemic

PRACE (Partnership for Advanced Computing in Europe), an international not-for-profit association that brings together the five largest European supercomputing centers and involves 26 European countries, has allocated more than half a billion core hours to computer simulations to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. Alongside experiments, these simulations are a pillar of research to assess the risks of different scenarios and investigate mitigation strategies. While the world deals with the subsequent waves of the pandemic, we present a reflection on the use of urgent supercomputing for global societal challenges and crisis management.     

Original research: Prioritisation of lower gastrointestinal endoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes of a novel triage pathway

ObjectiveThe 2-week-wait (2ww) referral pathway is used in England to fast-track patients with suspected colorectal cancer (CRC). A two-stage triage pathway was used to prioritise lower gastrointestinal (LGI) endoscopy for suspected CRC during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodAll patients referred for an LGI endoscopy via a 2ww referral pathway between March 2020 and July 2020 were assessed. The first stage triaged patients to high, standard or low risk of CRC based on symptoms and faecal immunochemical test (FIT), and offered CT scans to those at high risk. The second stage, endoscopy prioritisation (EP), incorporated the CT results, FIT and symptoms to triage into four groups, EP1–EP4; with EP1 being the most urgent and EP4 the least. The primary outcome measure was CRC detection.Results514 patients were included. The risk of CRC was triaged as high in 190/514 patients (37%), standard in 274/514 patients (53%) and low in 50/514 (10%) patients. 422/514 patients (82%) underwent endoscopy with triage to EP1 in 52/422 (12%), EP2 in 105/422 (25%), EP3 in 210/422 (50%) and EP4 in 55/422 (13%). CRC was detected in 23 patients (5.4%). CRC was significantly more frequent in the EP1 group (23.1%, relative risk (RR)=16.2) and EP2 group (6.7%, RR=4.7) compared with EP3 group (1.4%). All CRC lesions were identified by CT imaging when performed prior to LGI endoscopy.ConclusionThis triage pathway designated 83% of patients with CRC to either EP1 or EP2. During a period of limited endoscopy provision, this pathway effectively prioritises endoscopy for those at greatest risk of CRC.     

Hypoglycemia at the time of Covid-19 pandemic

BackgroundHypoglycemia is the limiting factor in the glycemic management of diabetes, which need to be addressed critically to avoid complications. Lockdown because of new coronavirus strain (COVID-19) pandemic has further complicated the issue of hypoglycemia due to limitations in access to food, outpatient clinics, pathological services and medicines.AimTo assess the factors associated with the risk of hypoglycemia during April–May 2020 lockdown in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus.MethodologyWe analyzed the data retrospectively from 146 patients of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) reporting to the emergency department (ED) during lockdown period with symptoms suggestive of hypoglycemia.ResultsThe majority of patients were male (90/146) with a mean age of 59.88 ± 10.09 years and a mean random blood glucose level of 57.67 ± 9.00 mg/dL. Two-third of patients (70.83%) had level 1 hypoglycemia, while level 2 hypoglycemia was reported in 29.16% of patients. A combination of Metformin and Sulfonylureas (SU) was most commonly associated with the risk of hypoglycemia (65.75%) followed by insulin (33.56%). Subjects who received insulin reported a lower blood glucose value (50.75 ± 8.20 mg/dL) as compared to those receiving a combination of metformin and SU (60.95 ± 7.10 mg/dl). 330.56% of patients who had received prophylaxis hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) 400 mg twice a day along with the routine anti-hyperglycemic agents without their dose adjustment reported hypoglycemia. Patients with hypertension, micro-vascular, macro-vascular complications, and coexistent with each other had a higher propensity to the risk of hypoglycemia (46.58%, 33.56%, 23.29%, and 32.88%) respectively.ConclusionThe COVID-19 lockdown has shown to influence the risk of hypoglycemia in patients with T2DM, especially those receiving SU, insulin, HCQ especially in patients with associated co-morbidities. Patient education, support, and telemedicine plays a pivotal role to prevent hypoglycemia.     

Perception of human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID 19 pandemic is far from over, and vaccines remain important tool for fighting the disease. As the preventive effects of the COVID-19 vaccine emerges, it is likely that the perception of importance and safety of vaccines have a positive effect on the acceptance of other vaccines. However, it is still unclear how COVID-19 pandemic has affected the general vaccination perception and acceptance. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the perception of HPV vaccination. This study involved an offline survey of 161 women aged between 20 and 49 years who visited the gynecologic clinic at Chung-nam National University Sejong Hospital from January 2021 to June 2021. The questionnaire consists of items related to experience and knowledge of COVID-19 and HPV viruses, as well as attitudes toward HPV vaccination. Knowledge about COVID-19 virus and HPV correlated positively with their experiences (P = .011 and P = .045, respectively). Positive attitude was increased, and negative attitude was reduced toward HPV vaccination in the COVID-19 pandemic era. Participants stated that accurate information and cost reduction about HPV vaccine was needed to increase the HPV vaccination rate. During the COVID-19 pandemic era, positive attitudes towards HPV vaccination have tended to increase. To increase the HPV vaccination rate, public efforts are needed for further information and cost reduction.     

Brief Report: Dynamics of racial disparities in all-cause mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic

As research documenting disparate impacts of COVID-19 by race and ethnicity grows, little attention has been given to dynamics in mortality disparities during the pandemic and whether changes in disparities persist. We estimate age-standardized monthly all-cause mortality in the United States from January 2018 through February 2022 for seven racial/ethnic populations. Using joinpoint regression, we quantify trends in race-specific rate ratios relative to non-Hispanic White mortality to examine the magnitude of pandemic-related shifts in mortality disparities. Prepandemic disparities were stable from January 2018 through February 2020. With the start of the pandemic, relative mortality disadvantages increased for American Indian or Alaska Native (AIAN), Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (NHOPI), and Black individuals, and relative mortality advantages decreased for Asian and Hispanic groups. Rate ratios generally increased during COVID-19 surges, with different patterns in the summer 2021 and winter 2021/2022 surges, when disparities approached prepandemic levels for Asian and Black individuals. However, two populations below age 65 fared worse than White individuals during these surges. For AIAN people, the observed rate ratio reached 2.25 (95% CI = 2.14, 2.37) in October 2021 vs. a prepandemic mean of 1.74 (95% CI = 1.62, 1.86), and for NHOPI people, the observed rate ratio reached 2.12 (95% CI = 1.92, 2.33) in August 2021 vs. a prepandemic mean of 1.31 (95% CI = 1.13, 1.49). Our results highlight the dynamic nature of racial/ethnic disparities in mortality and raise alarm about the exacerbation of mortality inequities for Indigenous groups due to the pandemic.     

Endoscopic mask innovation and protective measures changes during the coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic: Experience from a Chinese hepato-biliary-pancreatic unit

Endoscopy is widely used as a clinical diagnosis and treatment method for certain hepatobiliary and pancreatic diseases. However, due to the distinctive epidemiological characteristics of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, the virus causing coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), healthcare providers are exposed to the patient's respiratory and gastrointestinal fluids, rendering endoscopy a high risk for transmitting a nosocomial infection. This article introduces preventive measures for endoscopic treatment enacted in our medical center during COVID-19, including the adjustment of indications, the application of endoscope protective equipment, the design and application of endoscopic masks and splash-proof films, and novel recommendations for bedside endoscope pre-sterilization.     

Public health implications of opening National Football League stadiums during the COVID-19 pandemic

Using attendance data from the 2020 National Football League (NFL) regular season and local COVID-19 case counts, we estimate the public health impact of opening NFL stadiums to fans during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data are analyzed using robust synthetic control, a statistical method that is employed to obtain counterfactual estimates from observational data. Unlike previous studies [J. Kurland et al., SSRN, 2021], which do not consider confounding factors such as evolving policy landscapes in different states, the synthetic control methodology allows us to account for effects that are county specific and may be changing over time. We find it is likely that opening stadiums had no impact on local COVID-19 case counts; this suggests that, for the 2020 NFL season, the benefits of providing a tightly controlled outdoor spectating environment—including masking and distancing requirements—counterbalanced the risks associated with opening. These results are specific to the 2020 NFL season, and care should be taken in generalizing our conclusions. In particular, 1) these data reflect a period during which earlier strains of COVID-19 were dominant prior to the emergence of more-transmissive strains such as the Delta and Omicron variants, and 2) the data are restricted to outdoor environments; hence our results cannot be applied to small indoor spaces where transmission-restricting controls are essential.

A year and a half into the global COVID-19 pandemic, we have an opportunity to analyze and reflect upon the policies and decisions enacted over the past 18 mo. Given the distributed nature of policy decisions in the United States, we find ourselves in a unique position in which states and municipalities have explored different strategies to combat the virus, and the efficacy of those policies has been imprinted in the local case counts, hospitalizations, and death records. In particular, these data contain a wealth of information about which policies have proven to be effective in preserving the health and safety of our communities.One activity that one may wish to consider is the opening of outdoor sporting events to spectators. This question has recently generated quite a bit of interest as ballparks across the nation open for summer and events such as the 2021 Summer Olympics in Japan take place.^* On the one hand, governing bodies are naturally wary of opening stadiums given the well-documented importance of avoiding large gatherings. On the other hand, sporting events are often held outdoors, where airflow is largely unobstructed (1), and in venues where crowd density can be carefully controlled if the event is properly managed. In the absence of a detailed analysis, it is not immediately obvious which of these effects dominates.Data from the National Football League (NFL) may provide an answer to this question. During the 2020 regular season, teams in the NFL collaborated with local communities to determine whether or not to allow fans in the stadiums during the pandemic. In general, stadiums that opened their doors to fans adopted pandemic requirements for all in attendance (1), which typically include some combination of staggered entry, required masking, health questionnaires, temperature checks for staff, deployment of compliance officers, modified concessions, social distancing in seating and lines, mobile ticketing, enhanced cleaning protocols, amplified health and safety communications, and capacity limitations. The highest capacity that any NFL stadium allowed during the 2020 regular season was 30% (Dallas), with most other stadiums considerably below that limit (2). These policy decisions were made based on local guidelines, local prevalence, community risk tolerance, and other localized considerations; some stadiums ultimately decided to allow fans at the games, while others remained closed, providing perhaps the first set of natural experiments that can be analyzed to investigate the impact of opening stadiums on COVID-19 case rates. In the words of Kurland et al. (3), who recently provided a first look at this data, “Scant evidence has been gathered in the extant literature on the impact of sport venues on local public health, influenza-related mortality rates, or disease contagion more generally. There is a complete absence of any evidence related to the impact of fans gathering at sporting events, or mass gatherings more generally, on incidence of COVID-19 at the local-level.” The natural experiments from the 2020 NFL season and other sports leagues present a golden opportunity to address these questions in the context of the original 2020 COVID-19 strain (4, 5).In the Kurland et al. (3) study, the authors compared COVID-19 case data from NFL stadium counties that allowed fans in the stadium to counties that did not allow fans, and looked for spikes in the data in the weeks following a game; the authors concluded, from this analysis, that the presence of large numbers of fans at NFL games led to “tangible increases” in the local incidence of COVID-19 cases. However, this type of analysis may be problematic: In this context, the control stadiums (i.e., those without fans) tend to be embedded in states with stricter COVID-19 policies—rather than a random control—so the sample of control counties is strongly biased. New York and Dallas, for example, are immersed in very different environments with different pandemic policies, and it is not at all obvious that one can attribute the differences in case spikes to the stadiums, given the enormous number of confounding factors.Fortunately, there exists a rich literature of techniques—longitudinal methods, hierarchical methods, factor model methods, synthetic control, etc.—that we can draw upon to account for these confounding factors. In this particular analysis, we turn to synthetic control (6–9), which has been applied in a diversity of fields—criminology (10), healthcare (11), sports (12), and political science and policy evaluation (13–15), to name a few. At its heart, synthetic control is a method for estimating a counterfactual in the absence of an intervention, in this case, what would have happened if stadiums had not opened. The method provides a systematic way to choose relevant comparison units when randomized controls are not available.To illustrate the power of synthetic control, imagine the ideal experiment one would like to run in order to quantify the impact of opening the Dallas stadium to fans. In principle, we would like to have COVID-19 case counts from Dallas County throughout the season with the stadium open to fans and case counts from a Dallas twin—with identical people and policies to the first Dallas—in which the stadium did not open for comparison. The first set of data (Dallas open to fans) is readily available. The second set of data can be constructed from information from other counties in Texas—hereafter referred to as donor counties—which have policies and characteristics similar to Dallas. Synthetic control provides a methodology to build a weighted combination of these Dallas-like counties, which can then be used as a control group, that is, a “synthetic” Dallas twin. In particular, we seek the linear combination of case counts from other Texas counties that most closely mirrors the Dallas case counts prior to the stadium opening. Given that none of these non-Dallas counties have a stadium, this linear combination can be extended postintervention (i.e., after opening the stadium) to estimate what would have happened in the synthetic Dallas in which no stadium opened. Once it has been established that the stadium county and the synthetically generated county have similar behavior over extended periods of time prior to the intervention, a discrepancy in the number of COVID-19 cases following the intervention may be interpreted as a result of allowing fans in the stadium. One of the advantages of this method is that it can account for the effects of confounding factors that are county specific and may be changing over time, which is crucial in the ever-evolving policy landscape of a pandemic (16). In particular, our methodology allows for correlation between the decision to open the stadium and characteristics that define the county (cultural or political leaning, population density, demographics, etc.), but cannot account for correlations between the decision and exogenous noise.At this point, it is reasonable to speculate whether one should expect linear combinations of donor counties to accurately represent stadium counties (both observed and counterfactual). In general, assuming linearity is appropriate provided there exists an underlying low-dimensional structure to the case count data, that is, if the matrix containing discretized time series of donor county case counts is approximately low rank. Under a such a setting, linearity between counties is an almost immediate consequence (see Materials and Methods for details). This low-rank assumption is common in the matrix completion literature; notably, low-rank matrices have also been shown to naturally arise in modern datasets and emerge from “well-behaved” generative models (e.g., Lipschitz functions) (17–20). This point will be revisited in Results, where we test for low rankedness empirically in the context of our dataset.Finally, the selection of donor units is a critical step in the successful implementation of creating a synthetic control. In particular, donor units (in our case, counties) should have the following characteristics:

• 1)Counties affected by the intervention or by events of a similar nature should be excluded from the donor pool.
• 2)Counties that may have suffered large “idiosyncratic shocks” (7, 21) during the preintervention period should be excluded.
• 3)The donor pool should be restricted to counties with characteristics similar to the stadium county; in this case, we restrict our pool to counties from the same state to maintain some consistency in COVID-19 policies.
• 4)Case counts that cover an extended period of time prior to the intervention are required for both stadium counties and donor counties.

In order to establish which counties satisfy these constraints, the NFL provided us with aggregate attendance data indicating the percentage of fans from each county in each state (2). In general, 10% or more of the fans come from the county in which the stadium is located. Hence, we designate counties that provided more than 10% of the fan base as stadium counties. In addition, there are a number of counties that are home to many fans but not to the same extent as that of the stadium counties. Since there is some ambiguity as to whether these counties should be counted as stadium counties or donor counties, we designate counties that supply between 1% and 10% of the fan base as buffer counties and, in light of the first criterion above, do not include them as either stadium or donor counties. Second, to address criterion 3, we only include counties in the donor pool that come from the same state as the stadium county. Although there is variation at the county level, overarching COVID-19 guidance, in general, comes from the states; hence, we assume that policies are relatively consistent within states and allow that they may vary dramatically from state to state. In addition, we only retain counties in which at least 200 cases have been recorded, in order to eliminate donor counties that are either markedly underreporting or undertesting. Finally, we are fortunate that football season starts in September, which allows us to address criterion 4; given that relatively reliable COVID-19 case count data have been available since approximately April 2020, we have 4 mo of training data at our disposal to learn the weights for the synthetic counties. Criterion 2 is trickier, given that we do not necessarily know, a priori, all events that could cause a shock to the system; however, a posteriori, we can investigate the outcomes and look for signs of such a shock.^†     

Coping with stress during the COVID-19 pandemic in the oldest-old population

The aim of the study is to investigate psychosocial factors that are associated with positive and negative coping with stress, as well as with worries about and perceived threat by COVID-19 to enable us to provide adequate support for oldest-old individuals. A paper–pencil-based survey assessed COVID-19 worries and perceived threat, depression, anxiety, somatization, social support, loneliness, resilience, positive and negative coping in a sample of n = 197 oldest-old individuals (78–100 years). Linear multivariate and binary logistic regression analyses were conducted. Individuals with high levels of resilience were more likely to feel self-efficient when coping with stress. High levels of depression, anxiety and loneliness were associated with feeling more helpless when coping with stress. However, oldest-old individuals who felt lonely also experienced situations where they felt competent in stress coping. Being male and experiencing high levels of social support was more likely associated with high levels of worries due to COVID-19. Increased age and higher levels of depression were associated with lower levels of perceived personal threat, whereas higher somatization scores were more likely associated with higher perceived personal threat. Findings suggest that mental health factors may shape the way oldest-old individuals cope with pandemic-related stress. Resilience might be an important factor to take into account when targeting an improvement in positive coping with stress. Oldest-old individuals who have higher levels of depression, anxiety and feel lonely may be supported by adapting their coping skill repertoire to reduce the feeling of helplessness when coping with stress.     

Changes in alcohol use during the COVID-19 pandemic and previous pandemics: A systematic review

The objective of this study is to summarize the research on the relationships between exposure to the COVID-19 pandemic or previous pandemics and changes in alcohol use. A systematic search of Medline and Embase was performed to identify cohort and cross-sectional population studies that examined changes in alcohol use during or following a pandemic compared to before a pandemic occurred. Outcomes examined included differences in the volume and frequency of alcohol consumption and the frequencies of heavy episodic drinking (HED) and alcohol-related problems during a pandemic compared to before a pandemic. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Nonrandomized Studies. This study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The search yielded 672 articles; 27 were included in the narrative review, of which 6 were cohort studies (all from high-income countries). A total of 259,188 participants were included. All cohort studies examined the impact of COVID-19 and associated pandemic-related policies, including social distancing and alcohol-specific policies, on alcohol use. Cohort studies demonstrated a consistent significant decrease in total alcohol consumption (Australia) and a significant increase in the frequency of alcohol use (United States). A significant decrease in the frequency of HED was observed in Australia and Spain but not in the United States. A significant increase in the proportion of people with problematic alcohol use was observed in the United Kingdom. Initial insights into changes in alcohol use indicate substantial heterogeneity. Alcohol use may have decreased in some countries, while HED and the proportion of people with problematic alcohol use may have increased. The lack of high-quality studies from low- and middle-income countries reflects a dearth of information from countries inhabited by most of the world's population.     

Comorbidities and the COVID-19 pandemic dynamics in Africa

The debate around the COVID-19 response in Africa has mostly focused on effects and implications of public health measures, in light of the socio-economic peculiarities of the continent. However, there has been limited exploration of the impact of differences in epidemiology of key comorbidities, and related healthcare factors, on the course and parameters of the pandemic. We summarise what is known about (a) the pathophysiological processes underlying the interaction of coinfections and comorbidities in shaping prognosis of COVID-19 patients, (b) the epidemiology of key coinfections and comorbidities, and the state of related healthcare infrastructure that might shape the course of the pandemic, and (c) implications of (a) and (b) for pandemic management and post-pandemic priorities. There is a critical need to generate empirical data on clinical profiles and the predictors of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. Improved protocols for acute febrile illness and access to diagnostic facilities, not just for SARS-CoV-2 but also other viral infections, are of urgent importance. The role of malaria, HIV/TB and chronic malnutrition on pandemic dynamics should be further investigated. Although chronic non-communicable diseases account for a relatively lighter burden, they have a significant effect on COVID-19 prognosis, and the fragility of care delivery systems implies that adjustments to clinical procedures and re-organisation of care delivery that have been useful in other regions are unlikely to be feasible. Africa is a large region with local variations in factors that can shape pandemic dynamics. A one-size-fits-all response is not optimal, but there are broad lessons relating to differences in epidemiology and healthcare delivery factors, that should be considered as part of a regional COVID-19 response framework.     

The perspectives of dialysis patients about the Covid-19 pandemic and differences between the modalities

The novel coronavirus disease was declared as a pandemic and CKD is an important risk factor for morbidity and mortality. Dialysis has additional contributions on transmission risk so prompt preventive strategies were implemented for dialysis patients. We aimed to evaluate pandemic-related perceptions and concerns of dialysis patients and differences between dialysis modalities. An anonymous survey for assessing concerns, knowledge, and attitudes about the pandemic was sent online to a total of 339 patients on maintenance dialysis at four tertiary dialysis centers in Turkey. A total of 309 patients (54.9 ± 15.1 years, 51.6% females, 55.7% in-center HD, 44.3% peritoneal dialysis) enrolled. The anonymous online survey was conducted at the end of April 2020. HD patients were more concerned about transmission risk (p = 0.002) and risks associated with the dialysis treatment environment and the transport methods (p < 0.001). The total concern score was significantly higher in the HD group (2.60 ± 0.93 vs. 1.65 ± 0.54, p < 0.001). The knowledge about the pandemic and prevention methods and the attitudes of prevention were similar between the groups (p = 0.161 and 0.418, respectively). The compliance rate of personal preventive strategies was 98.1%. Considering changing the current dialysis modality due to the pandemic was higher in the HD group (p < 0.001). Although the preventive strategies were performed properly in the HD centers, HD patients were more concerned about the Covid-19 outbreak compared with PD. Our results support home dialysis treatments for modality decisions with patients' positive perspective of PD over HD during the pandemic.     

Practical advice for management of inflammatory bowel diseases patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: World Endoscopy Organization Statement

COVID-19 is rapidly spreading worldwide and specific literature how to deal with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) patients is limited so far. Here, the World Endoscopy Organisation is providing practical advice for the management of IBD patients during the pandemic covering the diagnostic and therapeutic spectrum.     

Cracks in the foundation: The experience of care aides in long-term care homes during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

Care aides (certified nursing assistants, personal support workers) are the largest workforce in long-term care (LTC) homes (nursing homes). They provide as much as 90% of direct care to residents. Their health and well-being directly affect both quality of care and quality of life for residents. The aim of this study was to understand the impact of COVID-19 on care aides working in LTC homes during the first year of the pandemic.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of 52 care aides from 8 LTC homes in Alberta and one in British Columbia, Canada, between January and April 2021. Nursing homes were purposively selected across: (1) ownership model and (2) COVID impact (the rate of COVID infections reported from March to December 2020). Interviews were recorded and analyzed using inductive content analysis.

Results

Care aides were mainly female (94%) and older (74% aged 40 years or older). Most spoke English as an additional language (76%), 54% worked full-time in LTC homes, and 37% worked multiple positions before “one worksite policies” were implemented. Two themes emerged from our analysis: (1) Care aides experienced mental and emotional distress from enforcing resident isolation, grief related to resident deaths, fear of contracting and spreading COVID-19, increased workload combined with staffing shortages, and rapidly changing policies. (2) Care aides' resilience was supported by their strong relationships, faith and community, and capacity to maintain positive attitudes.

Conclusions

These findings suggest significant, ongoing adverse effects for care aides in LTC homes from working through the COVID-19 pandemic. Our data demonstrate the considerable strength of this occupational group. Our results emphasize the urgent need to appropriately and meaningfully support care aides' mental health and well-being and adequately resource this workforce. We recommend improved policy guidelines and interventions.