Psychosocial impacts of COVID-19 upon a diverse Australian oncology workforce: From doctors to ancillary staff.

Abstract

Background: Potential moral hazards from COVID-19 for patient-facing oncology staff include rationalizing treatment, but prior research into staff distress has not included ancillary/administrative staff or compared geographic settings. We sought to document measures of distress and perceived preparedness from diverse oncology staff during the COVID-19 pandemic response, and correlate these with unfolding events. Methods:We utilized a mixed-methods approach comprising weekly diarising of executive communications and eventsby investigators, and prospective self-administered online surveys-by staff. Survey domains included perceived institutional preparedness, personal wellbeing, and perceived stress using a distress thermometer (0-10, no-extreme distress). Responses were Likert-scaled or free-text. Quantitative responses were aggregated by role/site and analysed using R. These were correlated with emergent qualitative themes using the Framework Method. The study was conducted at a metropolitan and a regional hospital in Queensland, Australia. Results: 12 surveys across 18 weeks commencing April 3, 2020 (encompassing 1st lockdown, lockdown easing, and 2nd lockdown) had 993 individual responses. 40% respondents were located regionally. Role categories included: nursing (50%), allied health (18%), medical (16%), administrative (15%), ancillary (e.g. cleaner, food service) (1%). Emergent themes were: Strategies for protectionat work and home. Up to 27% respondents reported being able to attend to critical personal needs only sometimes or less, although patients were perceived to be well supported most/all of the time (>90% responses). Navigating rules and keeping up-high levels of perceived institutional preparedness in >75% responders coexisted alongside fluctuating levels of self-reported distress, from median 5 (IQR 3-7) at 1st lockdown outset to 1 (IQR 1-4) after lockdown restriction easing. Tempered optimism-pride in one s place was reported both as reflecting healthcare worker identity and as Australians in the context of low local infection rates. No significant differences in distress or preparedness perceptions were evident comparing geographic sites. Framing the new normal-although respondents longitudinally reported increasing familiarity with pandemic directives, distress levels increased concurrently with the announcement of 2nd lockdown. Conclusions: In the context of low local COVID-19 infection rates, oncology staff regardless of role and geographic setting reported high perceptions of institutional preparedness. Distress levels increased concurrently with lockdown phases and reports of distress and psychosocial workload fatigue were made by various workers including administrative and ancillary. These should be considered frontline staff for the purpose of workplace psychosocial support in pandemic responses.