Conectar
To analyse, critique, and synthesise available research to create a unique framework of the impacts of COVID-19 on acute care nurses.
Whittemore and Knafl's framework was used to organise this review. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used for quality analysis.
CINAHL, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus and the National Institute of Health COVID-19 database were searched.
Twenty-five articles were included. Impacts on acute care nurses came from changes, access to resources, interrupted relationships, and the virus itself. The outcomes from nurses were categorised as positive, physical, emotional responses, leaving and mental disorders. These outcomes were mediated by making connections, coping, learning and experience, and finding meaning.
Nurses working in acute care during COVID-19 were faced with immense stressors in a tumultuous and dangerous time. The vastly negative outcomes were less surprising than the fact nurses were left to find mitigating factors on their own. Given the large attrition from nursing that occurred and is still occurring, health systems that can both lessen the impacts and strengthen the buffering effects of mediating factors may fare better when the next pandemic comes.
Lessons learned can be used to prepare for future pandemics. Nurses should be at the forefront of all planning whether through education, policy, or research. Having a framework allows for a more comprehensive understanding and provides an underpinning for future action.
The possibility for impact spans nurses across the globe who have worked, and who may work, during a pandemic. This framework provides a basis for changes related to pandemic planning throughout nursing domains.
The researcher has adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement.
No Patient or Public Contribution.
Exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can lead to reduced lung function and worse clinical outcomes. Previous studies have reported associations between severe exacerbations and increased risk of hospitalisation and/or mortality. This meta-analysis examined the impact of moderate exacerbations on the risk of future exacerbations and all-cause mortality.
This meta-analysis included seven observational studies from the EXACOS (EXAcerbations of COPD and their OutcomeS)/AVOIDEX (Impact of AVOIDing EXacerbations of COPD) programme studies.
This meta-analysis used data from regional claims databases or electronic healthcare records from seven countries.
The individual studies included patients with a diagnosis of COPD and ≥12 months of data availability before (regarded as baseline) and after the index (ie, the date of the first COPD diagnosis), with postindex data considered the follow-up period.
The number of COPD exacerbations experienced during the baseline period (ie, the exposure variable) was used to categorise patients into the following groups: no exacerbations, one moderate exacerbation only or two or more moderate/severe exacerbations. Outcomes assessed included risk of COPD exacerbations and all-cause mortality during follow-up as a function of baseline exacerbations. For meta-analyses, all rate ratios (RRs) were log-transformed, and associations were pooled across studies using random-effects meta-analysis models.
Among 2 733 162 patients with COPD, one moderate exacerbation was significantly associated with a twofold increased risk of future exacerbations compared with having no exacerbations during baseline, with pooled RRs (95% CIs) of 2.47 (1.47 to 4.14) at 1 year, 2.49 (1.38 to 4.49) at 2 years and 2.38 (1.30 to 4.34) at 3 years postindex. The pooled RR (95% CI) for all-cause mortality was 1.30 (1.05 to 1.62), indicating a 30% increase in risk following one moderate exacerbation versus no exacerbations.
Preventing moderate exacerbations in patients with COPD should be a priority that may improve patient trajectories and outcomes.
FreshRSS 