The COVID-19 pandemic’s first wave required considerable adaptation efforts on the part of healthcare workers. The literature on resilient healthcare describes how the collective regulation strategies implemented by frontline employees make essential contributions to institutions’ abilities to cope with major crises. The present mixed-methodology study was thus conducted among a large sample of employees in a variety of Swiss healthcare institutions and focused on problematic real-world situations experienced by them and their managers during the pandemic’s first wave. It highlighted the anticipatory and adaptive strategies implemented by institutions, teams and individuals. The most frequently cited problematic situations involved organisational changes, interpersonal conflicts and workloads. In addition to the numerous top-down measures implemented by institutions, respondents also identified personal or team regulation strategies such as increasing staff flexibility, prioritising tasks, interprofessional collaboration, peer support or creating new communication channels to families. The present findings underlined the importance of taking greater account of healthcare support staff and strengthening managerial capacity to support interprofessional teams including those support staff.

There is growing awareness that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, even in its mild or moderate respiratory forms, can include long-term neuropsychological deficits. Standardized neuropsychological, psychiatric, neurological, and olfactory tests were administered to 45 patients 236.51 ± 22.54 days after hospital discharge following severe, moderate, or mild respiratory severity from SARS-CoV-2 infection (severe = intensive care unit hospitalization, moderate = conventional hospitalization, mild = no hospitalization). Deficits were found in all domains of cognition, and the prevalence of psychiatric symptoms was relatively high in the three groups. The severe infection group performed more poorly on long-term episodic memory tests and exhibited greater anosognosia than did the other two groups. Those with moderate infection had poorer emotion recognition, which was positively correlated with persistent olfactory dysfunction. Individuals with mild infection were more stressed, anxious, and depressed. The data support the hypothesis that the virus targets the central nervous system (notably the limbic system) and the notion that there are different neuropsychological phenotypes.

Objective: Several studies have reported poor long-term neuropsychological performances in patients following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, but none has yet considered the effect of administering multiple intercorrelated neuropsychological tests and assessed the frequency of cognitive deficits in a normative population. Our aim was therefore to assess the presence of cumulative neuropsychological deficits in an actual post-coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) comparison group versus one simulated using Monte-Carlo methods. Method: Validated neuropsychological Monte-Carlo simulation methods were applied to scores from a battery of neuropsychological tests (memory, executive, attentional, perceptual, logical reasoning, language, and ideomotor praxis) administered to 121 patients who had had mild, moderate, or severe COVID-19 (mean age: 56.70 years; 32% women), 222 ± 43 days post-infection. The cumulative percentages of the three severity subgroups were compared with the results of a false discovery rate-corrected probability analysis based on normative data. Results: The cumulative percentages of deficits in memory and executive functions among the severe and moderate patients were significantly higher than those estimated for the normative population. Moderate patients also had significantly more deficits in perception and logical reasoning. In contrast, the mild group did not have significantly more cumulative deficits. Conclusions: Moderate and severe forms of COVID-19 cause greater long-term neuropsychological deficits than those that would be found in a normative population, reinforcing the hypothesis of long-term effects of SARS-CoV-2 on cognitive function, independent of the severity of the initial infection.

Psychiatric impact of COVID-19 is still explored and previous data suggest potential risks of anxiety, depression and PTSD related to COVID-19. We aimed to explore the predictive value of risk factors during hospitalization (T0) for COVID-19 for anxiety, depression and PTSD and at three months (T1) because they could differ over these two time points. We performed a screening of mental suffering in hospitalized patients for COVID-19, as well as specialized care and three months longitudinal follow-up. We evaluated at T0 and at T1 the prevalence of anxiety, depression and PTSD in survivors who benefited from early detection and treatment, and assessed possible risk factors in adults surviving COVID-19 between the 30th March and the 1^st of July 2020. 109 patients were screened at T0 and 61 of these were reassessed at T1. At T0, we found 44.9% pathological score on peritraumatic dissociation experiences questionnaire (PDEQ), 85.4% of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms (PTSS), 14.6% of pathological rate of post-traumatic stress disorder scale 5 (PCL5) and at T1, 86.9% of PTSS, 10.6% of pathological rate of PCL5. Finally, PDEQ score at T0 during hospitalization was positively correlated to PCL-5 score at T1 (β = 0.26, p = 0.01) and that was confirmed in multivariate analysis (β = 0.04, p = 0.02 for the log of PCL-5 per point on the PDEQ). Screening of psychiatric symptoms during hospitalization for COVID-19 should be systematic, especially peritraumatic dissociation to offer an early treatment and prevent PTSD, which seemed frequent for hospitalized patients for COVID-19 at three months.

Healthcare workers (HCWs) have significantly suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic, reporting a high prevalence of anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We investigated with this survey whether HCWs benefitted from supportive measures put in place by hospitals and how these measures were perceived. This cross-sectional survey, which was conducted during the first wave of COVID-19 at the Geneva University Hospitals, Switzerland, between May and July 2021, collected information on the use and perception of practical and mental health support measures provided by the hospital. In total, 3461 HCWs participated in the study. Regarding the practical support measures, 2896 (84%) participants found them useful, and 2650 (76%) used them. Regarding the mental health support measures, 3149 (90%) participants found useful to have the possibility of attending hypnosis sessions, 3163 (91%) to have a psychologist within hospital units, 3202 (93%) to have a medical nursing psychiatric permanence available seven days a week, and 3171 (92%) to have a hotline available seven days a week. In total, 436 (13%) HCWs used at least one of the available mental health support measures. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the support measures were valued by HCWs. Given the high prevalence of psychiatric issues among HCWs, these measures seem necessary and are likely to have alleviated the suffering of HCWs.

Inefficient ventilatory response during cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) has been suggested as a cause of post-COVID-19 dyspnea. It has been described in hospitalized patients (HOSP) with lung parenchymal sequelae but also after mild infection in ambulatory patients (AMBU). We hypothesize that AMBU and HOSP have different ventilatory responses to exercise, due to different etiologies. We analyzed CPET realized between July 2020 and May 2022 of patients with persisting respiratory symptoms 3 mo after COVID-19. Chest computed tomography (CT) scan, pulmonary function tests, quality of life, and respiratory questionnaires were collected. CPET data were specifically explored as a function of ventilation (Ve) and time. Seventy-nine consecutive patients were included (42 AMBU and 37 HOSP, median: 54 [44-60] yr old, 57% female). Patients were hospitalized for a median of 20 [8-34] days, with pneumonia (41%) or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS; 30%). Among HOSP, 12(32%) patients had abnormal values for spirometry and 18(51%) for carbon monoxide diffusing capacity (P < 0.001). CPET showed no differences between AMBU and HOSP in peak absolute O-2 uptake (Vo(2)) (1.59 [1.22-2.11] mL center dot min(-1); P = 0.65). Tidal volume (VT) as a function of Ve, was lower in AMBU than in HOSP (P < 0.01) toward the end of exercise. The slope of the Ve-CO2 production was higher than normal in both groups (30.9 [26.1-34.3]; P = 0.96). In conclusion, the severity of COVID-19 did not influence the exercise capacity, but AMBU demonstrated a less efficient ventilatory response to exercise as compared with HOSP. CPET with exploration of data as a function of Ve and throughout the exercise better unveil ventilatory inefficiency.