| Literature DB >> 34064501 |
Joanna G Katzman1,2, Laura E Tomedi1, George Everly3, Margaret Greenwood-Ericksen4, Elizabeth Romero3, Nils Rosenbaum5, Jessica Medrano6, Paige Menking1, Gaelyn R D Archer1, Chamron Martin1, Karina A Dow1, Shannon McCoy-Hayes1, Jeffrey W Katzman7.
Abstract
The First Responder ECHO (Extension for Community Outcomes) program was established in 2019 to provide education for first responders on self-care techniques and resiliency while establishing a community of practice to alleviate the enormous stress due to trauma and substance misuse in the community. When the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic hit the United States (US) in March 2020, a tremendous strain was placed on first responders and healthcare workers, resulting in a program expansion to include stress mitigation strategies. From 31 March 2020, through 31 December 2020, 1530 unique first responders and frontline clinicians participated in the newly expanded First Responder Resiliency (FRR) ECHO. The robust curriculum included: psychological first aid, critical incident debriefing, moral distress, crisis management strategies, and self-care skills. Survey and focus group results demonstrated that, while overall stress levels did not decline, participants felt more confident using psychological first aid, managing and recognizing colleagues who needed mental health assistance, and taking time for self-care. Although first responders still face a higher level of stress as a result of their occupation, this FRR ECHO program improves stress management skills while providing weekly learning-listening sessions, social support, and a community of practice for all first responders.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; emergency medical technician; first responder; healthcare worker; law enforcement; paramedic; resiliency; self-care; stress
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34064501 PMCID: PMC8124662 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18094900
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Attendance per session (A) and frequency of sessions attended (B) of First Responders Resiliency (FRR) ECHO, 23 March 2020–31 December 2020.
Characteristics of First Responder Resiliency (FRR) unique participants (31 March–31 December 2020) ECHO survey, and focus groups, 28 September–11 November 2020, N = 45.
| Attendance (N = 919) | Survey (N = 45) | Focus Groups (N = 18) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
| Female | - | - | 30 | 66.7% | 14 | 77.8% |
| Male | - | - | 15 | 33.3% | 4 | 22.2% |
|
| ||||||
| First Responders (law, fire, EMT) | 216 | 23.5% | 16 | 35.6% | 7 | 38.9% |
| Medical Professionals (MD, RN, PA) | 393 | 42.8% | 16 | 35.6% | 3 | 16.7% |
| Mental Health (SW, PsyD, LMFT) | 206 | 22.4% | 7 | 15.6% | 6 | 33.3% |
| Other Degrees (BS, BA, MPA, PhD) | 104 | 11.3% | 6 | 13.3% | 2 | 11.1% |
Many FRR ECHO participants (47.7%) are located in NM. However, others are geographically dispersed throughout all 50 US states and Puerto Rico. Additionally, the FRR ECHO has had attendance from 30 countries—most commonly from Mexico (n = 10), South Africa (n = 10), Canada (n = 7), and Nigeria (n = 6). Participants attending from NM represent 28 of NM’s 33 counties. Bachelors Arts (BA), Bachelors Science (BS), Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Emergency Medical Technician (EMT), Licensed Marriage/Family Therapist (LMFT), Masters in Public Administration (MPA), Medical Doctor (MD), Physician Assistant (PA), Psychologist (PsyD), Registered Nurse (RN), Social Worker (SW).
Participants’ confidence 1 and agreement 2 with statements about resiliency, First Responders Resiliency (FRR) ECHO Survey, 28 September–11 November 2020, N = 45.
| Confidence in Using Skills | Mean Score | Mean Score | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Using the elements of psychological first aid | 2.64 | 3.17 | <0.01 |
| Practicing self-care | 2.93 | 3.26 | <0.01 |
| Responding to and caring for patients who may be positive for or are suffering from SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) 3 | 2.37 | 2.93 | <0.01 |
| Recognizing and managing emergencies related to severe mental illness (e.g., psychosis, depression, etc.) as a first responder | 2.64 | 3.02 | <0.01 |
| Incorporating trauma-informed care into your response to emergencies as a first responder | 2.40 | 2.86 | <0.01 |
| Recognizing and responding to a coworker struggling with mental health issues | 2.77 | 3.14 | <0.01 |
| Recognizing and responding to a coworker struggling with substance use issues | 2.56 | 2.98 | <0.01 |
| Recognizing and accessing rural-specific resources to address mental health and substance use in the community | 2.57 | 3.02 | <0.01 |
|
| |||
| I often felt tired/fatigued rather than energetic, even when I had enough sleep | 3.07 | 3.02 | 0.79 |
| I felt overwhelmed by my work | 3.12 | 2.86 | 0.15 |
| I was absent and sick more often than I’d liked to have been | 1.91 | 1.91 | N/A |
| The public’s lack of respect for my profession was problematic | 2.61 | 2.64 | 0.89 |
| I often felt in danger while working | 2.61 | 2.66 | 0.75 |
|
| |||
| … Spending time with people helped counteract my work stress | 3.67 | 3.84 | 0.11 |
| … I spent time with various colleagues from work to counteract my work stress | 3.43 | 3.36 | 0.63 |
| … When I experienced professional stress, I was able to manage it proactively | 3.66 | 3.88 | 0.15 |
| … When I became stressed due to work, I tended to “shut down” and not talk to others about what is on my mind | 2.98 | 2.65 | 0.04 |
| ... I noticed that my coworkers increased their substance use to deal with job stress | 2.93 | 2.76 | 0.13 |
| ... I sometimes drank more alcohol than I planned to in order to deal with job stress | 2.36 | 3.68 | <0.01 |
1 Confidence measured on a 1–4 scale (1-Not at all confident, 2-Somewhat confident, 3-Moderately confident, 4-Extremely confident) 2 Agreement measured on a 5-point Likert scale (Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree). 3 SARS-CoV-2 refers to the COVID-19 virus.
Themes and codes in participant feedback by rural versus urban and non-traditional first responder (NTFR) versus traditional first responder (TFR), First Responders Resiliency (FRR) ECHO Focus Groups, 5–9 October 2020, 21 participants.
| Total | Rural | Urban | NTFR | TFR | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Experienced world stress | 16 | 4 | 8.2% | 12 | 9.6% | 12 | 24.0% | 4 | 19.0% |
| Political and global turmoil | 8 | 2 | 4.1% | 6 | 4.8% | 8 | 16.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Did not want to be seen as weak | 6 | 2 | 4.1% | 4 | 3.2% | 5 | 10.0% | 1 | 4.8% |
| COVID is like a battle | 4 | 3 | 6.1% | 1 | 0.8% | 3 | 6.0% | 4 | 19.0% |
| External barriers make skills hard to use | 4 | 1 | 2.0% | 3 | 2.4% | 2 | 4.0% | 2 | 9.5% |
| Feeling overwhelmed prevents using skills | 1 | 1 | 2.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 1 | 2.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
|
| |||||||||
| Provided sense of community | 28 | 9 | 18.4% | 19 | 15.2% | 16 | 32.0% | 12 | 57.1% |
| Reflected/normalized | 9 | 4 | 8.2% | 5 | 4.0% | 6 | 12.0% | 3 | 14.3% |
| Encouraged empathy for others | 8 | 3 | 6.1% | 5 | 4.0% | 3 | 6.0% | 5 | 23.8% |
| Was a safe space | 8 | 3 | 6.1% | 5 | 4.0% | 3 | 6.0% | 5 | 23.8% |
| Found people they can trust | 6 | 0 | 0.0% | 6 | 4.8% | 4 | 8.0% | 2 | 9.5% |
| Provided “me” time | 3 | 0 | 0.0% | 3 | 2.4% | 2 | 4.0% | 1 | 4.8% |
| Networking opportunities | 2 | 0 | 0.0% | 2 | 1.6% | 0 | 0.0% | 2 | 9.5% |
|
| |||||||||
| Content was applicable | 19 | 5 | 10.2% | 14 | 11.2% | 15 | 30.0% | 4 | 19.0% |
| Shared skills with colleagues | 13 | 6 | 12.2% | 7 | 5.6% | 8 | 16.0% | 5 | 23.8% |
| Content was a good reminder | 7 | 1 | 2.0% | 6 | 4.8% | 5 | 10.0% | 2 | 9.5% |
| Used skills from ECHO | 6 | 1 | 2.0% | 5 | 4.0% | 4 | 8.0% | 2 | 9.5% |
| Need more time to learn applications | 5 | 0 | 0.0% | 5 | 4.0% | 5 | 10.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Not enough time | 5 | 0 | 0.0% | 5 | 4.0% | 4 | 8.0% | 1 | 4.8% |
| Zoom format works well | 3 | 0 | 0.0% | 3 | 2.4% | 1 | 2.0% | 2 | 9.5% |
| Wanted to be in a breakout with similar people | 3 | 2 | 4.1% | 1 | 0.8% | 3 | 6.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Liked interdisciplinary teaching | 2 | 1 | 2.0% | 1 | 0.8% | 1 | 2.0% | 1 | 4.8% |
| Met participants’ needs | 2 | 1 | 2.0% | 1 | 0.8% | 1 | 2.0% | 1 | 4.8% |
| Enjoyed breakout sessions | 2 | 0 | 0.0% | 2 | 1.6% | 2 | 4.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Content moved too quickly | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 1 | 0.8% | 1 | 2.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Participants not wanting to share was a barrier | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 1 | 0.8% | 0 | 0.0% | 1 | 4.8% |
| There were technical problems | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 1 | 0.8% | 0 | 0.0% | 1 | 4.8% |
| Discussion was honest | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 1 | 0.8% | 0 | 0.0% | 1 | 4.8% |
| 174 | 49 | 100.0% | 125 | 100.0% | 50 | 100.0% | 21 | 100.0% | |
1 N reflects the number of separate instances where an idea was mentioned, not the number of people, 2 ECHO reflects Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes.
Selected participant quotes and corresponding codes, First Responders Resiliency (FRR) ECHO Focus Groups, 5–9 October 2020, 21 participants.
| Quote | Codes |
|---|---|
|
| Content was applicable |
|
| Did not want to be seen as weak, Was a safe space |
|
| Provided sense of community |
|
| Encouraged empathy for others |
|
| Content was applicable, Enjoyed breakout sessions |
|
| Shared skills with colleagues |