Citations

Objectives In 2018, the Healing Emotional Lives of Peers (HELP) Program was implemented at Mayo Clinic Rochester to guide healthcare professionals (HCPs) after a second victim experience, such as adverse patient events or medical errors. The HELP program was expanded to all HCPs in response to the anticipated stressors of the COVID-19 pandemic. This article aims to describe the rapid expansion of the peer support program and evaluate the effectiveness of peer support provided to affected colleagues (ACs). Methods Quantitative data collected from workshop evaluations, activations, and associated metrics (TPS Self-Assessment, Encounter Form, and AC Self-Assessment) were summarized through standard descriptive statistics using SAS version 9.4 software. Open-ended responses were qualitatively analyzed for iterative themes about the HELP program and associated workshops. Results Between April 2020 and December 2021, 22 virtual workshops to train peer supporters were conducted with 827 attendees. Of these, 464 employees completed the workshop evaluation. A total of 94.2% rated the workshop as excellent or very good. Participants perceived the workshop to be highly effective and felt more prepared to support ACs. Between May 2020 and December 2021, 247 activations were submitted through the HELP Program’s intranet Web site and peer support was requested for 649 employees. Of the 268 TPS Self-Assessments, 226 (84.3%) felt that they provided helpful support to an AC. One hundred ACs evaluated support received, with 93% being “extremely” or “very satisfied.” Affected colleagues appreciated having a TPS provide judgment-free support. Conclusions The HELP Program promotes a culture of safety by helping HCPs process traumatic events. To effectively meet the needs of patients, healthcare organizations need to prioritize the well-being of their employees through interpersonal support.

Purpose: Temporal encephaloceles are a cause of drug-resistant temporal lobe epilepsy; however, their relationship with epileptogenesis is unclear, and optimal surgical resection is uncertain. EEG source localization (ESL) may guide surgical decision-making. Methods: We reviewed patients at Mayo Clinic Rochester with drug-resistant temporal lobe epilepsy and temporal encephaloceles, who underwent limited resection and had 1-year outcomes. EEG source localization was performed using standard density scalp EEG of ictal and interictal activity. Distance from dipole and standardized low-resolution brain electromagnetic tomography (sLORETA) solutions to the encephalocele were measured. Concordance of ESL with encephalocele and surgical resection was compared with 1-year surgical outcomes. Results: Seventeen patients met criteria. The mean distances from ESL results to encephalocele center for dipole and sLORETA analyses were 23 mm (SD 9) and 22 mm (SD 11), respectively. Ten patients (55.6%) had Engel I outcomes at 1 year. Dipole-encephalocele distance and sLORETA-encephalocele distance were significantly longer in patients with Engel I outcome and patients whose encephalocele was contained by sLORETA had worse outcome as well; however, multiple logistic regression analysis found that only containment of encephalocele by the sLORETA current density was significant (P < 0.05), odds ratio 0.12 (95% confidence interval [0.021, 0.71]). Conclusions: EEG source localization of scalp EEG localizes near encephaloceles, however, typically not in the encephalocele itself; this may be due to scalp EEG sampling propagated activity or alternatively that the seizure onset zone extends beyond the herniated cortex. Surprisingly, we observed increased ESL to encephalocele distances in patients with excellent surgical outcomes. Larger cohort studies including intracranial EEG data are needed to further explore this finding.

There is growing recognition that clinical and nonclinical healthcare professionals may become “second victims” following adverse patient events, medical errors, or patient-related injuries. In addition to the trauma-associated symptoms experienced by second victims, unprocessed second victim experience (SVE) can lead to burnout and leaving the healthcare workforce. To better understand the risk factors and support needs of affected healthcare professionals after a SVE, we conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with twelve staff in obstetrics & gynecology and pediatrics at a large academic medical institution in the upper Midwest of the U.S. Several participants indicated that it was not the patient outcome itself that precipitated the SVE, but associated factors such as moral distress or communication challenges. Participants discussed the role of their work unit culture in post-SVE processing, expressing that units perceived as blame-seeking or where adverse events were not openly discussed, hindered their recovery. While desired support mechanisms were individualized, participants stressed the importance of immediate and proactive support, such as through a peer support program, and long-term support mechanisms for lingering symptoms. As attrition of the healthcare workforce continues to be a significant concern, it is essential that we understand and meet the post-SVE support needs of affected staff, to promote holistic care following adverse patient events.

AbstractBackgroundIt has yet to be fully elucidated how differing populations of obstetric patients adapted to the disruptions in perinatal care and postpartum support from the COVID‐19 pandemic. We surveyed an enriched sample of socioeconomically advantaged patients to understand the influence of COVID‐19 on their perinatal care experience, well‐being, and coping.MethodsWe surveyed pregnant and postpartum patients (n = 6140) at a large academic medical center in the Midwest of the United States using the Coronavirus and Perinatal Experiences instrument in Spring 2021.ResultsThe survey was sent to 6141 pregnant and postpartum patients; 1180 (17.8%) respondents completed the survey, including 256 who were pregnant and 834 postpartum. Most pregnant patients experienced no changes in their prenatal care with 16.5% indicating somewhat worsened care. In the postpartum cohort, 37.5% stated their care had somewhat worsened. In describing influences on stress and mental health, 58.1% of postpartum respondents stated it was moderately, and 17.4% significantly, worse. The pandemic had a somewhat or moderately negative influence for 72.7% of respondents, with 11.0% stating these effects were extremely negative. Both cohorts characterized a range of coping strategies, most commonly, talking with friends and family (76.3%).Conclusion(s)Even among this sample of socioeconomically advantaged patients, respondents indicated that the pandemic disrupted many facets of their medical care and daily life, especially social activities and postpartum support. Our findings suggest that counseling on coping and adaptation strategies for stressors and increased health systems support be part of perinatal care during public health emergencies for all demographic groups.