Background: Nurses at the frontline of caring for COVID-19 patients might experience mental health challenges and supportive coping strategies are needed to reduce their stress and burnout. The aim of this study was to identify stressors and burnout among frontline nurses caring for COVID-19 patients in Wuhan and Shanghai and to explore perceived effective morale support strategies. Method: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in March 2020 among 110 nurses from Zhongshan Hospital, Shanghai, who were deployed at COVID-19 units in Wuhan and Shanghai. A COVID-19 questionnaire was adapted from the previous developed “psychological impacts of SARS” questionnaire and included stressors (31 items), coping strategies (17 items), and effective support measures (16 items). Burnout was measured with the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Results: Totally, 107 (97%) nurses responded. Participants mean age was 30.28 years and 90.7% were females. Homesickness was most frequently reported as a stressor (96.3%). Seven of the 17 items related to coping strategies were undertaken by all participants. Burnout was observed in the emotional exhaustion and depersonalization subscales, with 78.5 and 92.5% of participants presenting mild levels of burnout, respectively. However, 52 (48.6%) participants experienced a severe lack of personal accomplishment. Participants with longer working hours in COVID-19 quarantine units presented higher emotional exhaustion (OR = 2.72, 95% CI 0.02–5.42; p = 0.049) and depersonalization (OR = 1.14, 95% CI 0.10–2.19; p = 0.033). Participants with younger age experienced higher emotional exhaustion (OR = 2.96, 95% CI 0.11–5.82; p = 0.042) and less personal accomplishment (OR = 3.80, 95% CI 0.47–7.13; p = 0.033). Conclusions: Nurses in this study experienced considerable stress and the most frequently reported stressors were related to families. Nurses who were younger and those working longer shift-time tended to present higher burnout levels. Psychological support strategies need to be organized and implemented to improve mental health among nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background Neonatal research evaluates many different outcomes using multiple measures. This can prevent synthesis of trial results in meta-analyses, and selected outcomes may not be relevant to former patients, parents and health professionals. Objective To define a core outcome set (COS) for research involving infants receiving neonatal care in a high-income setting. Design Outcomes reported in neonatal trials and qualitative studies were systematically reviewed. Stakeholders were recruited for a three-round international Delphi survey. A consensus meeting was held to confirm the final COS, based on the survey results. Participants Four hundred and fourteen former patients, parents, healthcare professionals and researchers took part in the eDelphi survey; 173 completed all three rounds. Sixteen stakeholders participated in the consensus meeting. Results The literature reviews identified 104 outcomes; these were included in round 1. Participants proposed 10 additional outcomes; 114 outcomes were scored in rounds 2 and 3. Round 1 scores showed different stakeholder groups prioritised contrasting outcomes. Twelve outcomes were included in the final COS: survival, sepsis, necrotising enterocolitis, brain injury on imaging, general gross motor ability, general cognitive ability, quality of life, adverse events, visual impairment/blindness, hearing impairment/deafness, retinopathy of prematurity and chronic lung disease/bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Conclusions and relevance A COS for clinical trials and other research studies involving infants receiving neonatal care in a high-income setting has been identified. This COS for neonatology will help standardise outcome selection in clinical trials and ensure these are relevant to those most affected by neonatal care.

Objectives: There is growing recognition that high-quality care for patients and families in the ICU requires exemplary interprofessional collaboration and communication. One important aspect is how the ICU team makes complex decisions. However, no recommendations have been published on interprofessional shared decision-making. The aim of this project is to use systematic review and normative analysis by experts to examine existing evidence regarding interprofessional shared decision-making, describe its principles and provide ICU clinicians with recommendations regarding its implementation. Data Sources: We conducted a systematic review using MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane databases and used normative analyses to formulate recommendations regarding interprofessional shared decision-making. Study Selection: Three authors screened titles and abstracts in duplicate. Data Synthesis: Four papers assessing the effect of interprofessional shared decision-making on quality of care were identified, suggesting that interprofessional shared decision-making is associated with improved processes and outcomes. Five recommendations, largely based on expert opinion, were developed: 1) interprofessional shared decision-making is a collaborative process among clinicians that allows for shared decisions regarding important treatment questions; 2) clinicians should consider engaging in interprofessional shared decision-making to promote the most appropriate and balanced decisions; 3) clinicians and hospitals should implement strategies to foster an ICU climate oriented toward interprofessional shared decision-making; 4) clinicians implementing interprofessional shared decision-making should consider incorporating a structured approach; and 5) further studies are needed to evaluate and improve the quality of interprofessional shared decision-making in ICUs. Conclusions: Clinicians should consider an interprofessional shared decision-making model that allows for the exchange of information, deliberation, and joint attainment of important treatment decisions.

Background: According to World Health Organization estimates, sepsis accounts for 60%–80% of lost lives per year in childhood. Measures appropriate for resource-scarce and resource-abundant settings alike can reduce sepsis deaths. In this regard, the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive Care and Critical Care Societies Board of Directors announces the Global Pediatric Sepsis Initiative, a quality improvement program designed to improve quality of care for children with sepsis. Objectives: To announce the global sepsis initiative; to justify some of the bundles that are included; and to show some preliminary data and encourage participation. Methods: The Global Pediatric Sepsis Initiative is developed as a Web-based education, demonstration, and pyramid bundles/checklist tool ( http://www.pediatricsepsis.org or http://www.wfpiccs.org ). Four health resource categories are included. Category A involves a nonindustrialized setting with mortality rate 30 of 1,000 children. Category B involves a nonindustrialized setting with mortality rate <5 yrs and <30 of 1,000 children. Category C involves a developing industrialized nation. In category D, developed industrialized nation are determined and separate accompanying administrative and clinical parameters bundles or checklist quality improvement recommendations are provided, requiring greater resources and tasks as resource allocation increased from groups A to D, respectively. Results: In the vanguard phase, data for 361 children (category A, n = 34; category B, n = 12; category C, n = 84; category D, n = 231) were successfully entered, and quality-assurance reports were sent to the 23 participating international centers. Analysis of bundles for categories C and D showed that reduction in mortality was associated with compliance with the resuscitation (odds ratio, 0.369; 95% confidence interval, 0.188–0.724; p < .0004) and intensive care unit management (odds ratio, 0.277; 95% confidence interval, 0.096–0.80) bundles. Conclusions: The World Federation of Pediatric Intensive Care and Critical Care Societies Global Pediatric Sepsis Initiative is online. Success in reducing pediatric mortality and morbidity, evaluated yearly as a measure of global child health care quality improvement, requires ongoing active recruitment of international participant centers. Please join us at http://www.pediatricsepsis.org or http://www.wfpiccs.org .