Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation

Psychological distress and trauma in doctors providing frontline care during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom and Ireland: a prospective longitudinal survey cohort study

Tom Roberts et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objectives: The psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on doctors is a significant concern. Due to the emergence of multiple pandemic waves, longitudinal data on the impact of COVID-19 are vital to ensure an adequate psychological care response. The primary aim was to assess the prevalence and degree of psychological distress and trauma in frontline doctors during the acceleration, peak and deceleration of the COVID-19 first wave. Personal and professional factors associated with psychological distress are also reported.

Design: A prospective online three-part longitudinal survey.

Setting: Acute hospitals in the UK and Ireland.

Participants: Frontline doctors working in emergency medicine, anaesthetics and intensive care medicine during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020.

Primary outcome measures: Psychological distress and trauma measured using the General Health Questionnaire-12 and the Impact of Events-Revised.

Results: The initial acceleration survey distributed across networks generated a sample of 5440 doctors. Peak and deceleration response rates from the original sample were 71.6% (n=3896) and 56.6% (n=3079), respectively. Prevalence of psychological distress was 44.7% (n=1334) during the acceleration, 36.9% (n=1098) at peak and 31.5% (n=918) at the deceleration phase. The prevalence of trauma was 23.7% (n=647) at peak and 17.7% (n=484) at deceleration. The prevalence of probable post-traumatic stress disorder was 12.6% (n=343) at peak and 10.1% (n=276) at deceleration. Worry of family infection due to clinical work was the factor most strongly associated with both distress (R2=0.06) and trauma (R2=0.10).

Conclusion: Findings reflect a pattern of elevated distress at acceleration and peak, with some natural recovery. It is essential that policymakers seek to prevent future adverse effects through (a) provision of vital equipment to mitigate physical and psychological harm, (b) increased awareness and recognition of signs of psychological distress and (c) the development of clear pathways to effective psychological care.

Trial registration number: ISRCTN10666798.

Keywords: Accident & emergency medicine; COVID-19; adult anaesthesia; adult intensive & critical care; mental health.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: Many of the authors have been working as frontline clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic. They have no competing interests to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Participant flow chart. GHQ-12, General Health Questionnaire-12; IES-R, Impact of Events Scale-Revised.
Figure 2
Figure 2
General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) scores.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Impact of Events Scale-Revised (IES-R) scores.
Figure 4
Figure 4
General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) variance explained model.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Impact of Events Scale-Revised (IES-R) variance explained model.
Figure 6
Figure 6
(A)–(F) General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) and Impact of Events Scale-Revised (IES-R) modelled outcomes.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Impact of Events Scale-Revised (IES-R) outcome-region.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Brooks SK, Dunn R, Sage CAM, et al. . Risk and resilience factors affecting the psychological wellbeing of individuals deployed in humanitarian relief roles after a disaster. J Ment Health 2015;24:385-413. 10.3109/09638237.2015.1057334 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Liu Q, Luo D, Haase JE, et al. . The experiences of health-care providers during the COVID-19 crisis in China: a qualitative study. Lancet Glob Health 2020;8:e790–8. 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30204-7 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. McCabe R, Schmit N, Christen P, et al. . Adapting Hospital capacity to meet changing demands during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Med 2020;18:329. 10.1186/s12916-020-01781-w - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Phua J, Weng L, Ling L, et al. . Intensive care management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): challenges and recommendations. Lancet Respir Med 2020;8:506-517. 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30161-2 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kursumovic E, Lennane S, Cook TM. Deaths in healthcare workers due to COVID-19: the need for robust data and analysis. Anaesthesia 2020;75:989–92. 10.1111/anae.15116 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data