3.8 Article

Concerns of Health-care Professionals Managing COVID Patients under Institutional Isolation during COVID-19 Pandemic in India: A Descriptive Cross-sectional Study

Journal

INDIAN JOURNAL OF PALLIATIVE CARE
Volume 26, Issue 5, Pages S90-S94

Publisher

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/IJPC.IJPC_172_20

Keywords

Concern; coping; health-care professionals; online survey

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Health-care professionals (HCPs) are the frontline warriors in the time of this uncertain and unpredictable crisis of COVID. They face many challenges while caring for these patients, yet they are expected to cope with it and deliver their duties for the betterment of humankind. Our primary aim was to identify and assess the concerns of HCPs working in COVID area in a tertiary institutional isolation center. Methodology: An online Google-based questionnaire survey was distributed through various social media platforms after approval of the institutional review board to a total of 100 HCPs who were treating and managing COVID-positive patients. Results: Of 100 responses, 72% were concerned about the risk of infection to self and family, while 46% reported disruption of their daily activities at a personal level. At the institutional level, 17% were concerned about inadequate personal protective equipment-related challenges. 20% had inadequate knowledge and training about COVID. 16% of participants were anxious all the time, 11% feared all the time, and 12% had stress all the time while treating COVID patients. Connectedness and communication with family and friends, word of appreciation, music, and TV were few strategies to cope up with these challenges. Conclusion: There is a need to identify and address the concerns and challenges faced by HCPs and to develop a comprehensive strategy and guideline to provide a holistic care and to ensure their security in the workplace.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available