Throughout my career as a reporter and writer, I have learned that readers typically use articles and reports for the purposes they intend.
Sometimes a report is presented to the reader as confirmation (“We’re in first place!” shouts the enthusiastic high school football coach.)
Sometimes as a reason for indignation or even anger (“What? We’re not number 1?!”) Or even better, for the coach who was afraid of overestimating himself: “We’re number 1? What does the newspaper know?!”).
To test this theory, one has to look at current news coverage of US politics or political polls at virtually any level. The often shameful behavior seems to lead to the conclusion: Find your own truth.
Then there are the academic studies that make you wonder: who gave these eggheads permission to conduct these scientific studies?
We’re talking about serious research into the difference between apples and oranges. (Honestly.) And whether it’s better to hit someone over the head with an empty or a full beer bottle. (Empty, of course. Why waste the beer in a full bottle? That’s my rock-solid conclusion.)
There has also been serious research into finding the mathematical formula for the “perfect cheese toast.” There has also been scientific research into the best way to walk so as not to risk spilling coffee from your cup. (Now You’re probably glad you continued reading.)
At first glance, the above points may seem silly or, at best, obvious to some.
But such studies are certainly useful and worthwhile, especially when they extend to the area of long-term care. Take, for example, new study results from Spain.
It will come as no surprise to anyone who worked in a nursing home between 2020 and 2023: the nurses working there suffered from greater psychological and related stress than their colleagues in acute hospitals.
Duh!, you say? True, but wait, a viral moment.
The value of this Spanish study is very real. It was supposedly conducted to arrive at better strategies for future health emergencies.
But the results also confirm that qualified nurses actually had a harder time than everyone else during the pandemic, both on an open and hidden level.
The cross-sectional, observable study of 54 hospital staff and 54 nursing home staff (from many departments within the facility, not just nursing) found that nursing home staff had higher scores and levels of anxiety (74% versus 42%), depression (41% versus 15%), and posttraumatic stress disorder (56% versus 26%) than their hospital counterparts.
A higher sense of meaning in life, according to the researchers, provided better protection against psychopathy and burnout. Moral courage, on the other hand, protected against depression and acute stress.
In short, the prevalence of psychopathological disorders – defined as anxiety disorders, depression and PTSD – was higher among nursing home employees.
The key factors, they conclude, are the workplace and professional context, but also personal concern that family members may be ill with COVID, as well as “inner dimensions such as meaning in life and moral courage.”
Join the crowd, Friends.
The deciding factor was probably the higher number of deaths among nursing home residents compared to hospitals, as both facilities have to contend with long work shifts, enormous workloads and large numbers of infectious people in their environment.
Strengthening the meaning of life and moral courage of workers is the way to strengthen the mental health of nurses in difficult times such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the experts seem to shout in their tables and theorems published by Scientific Reports.
These aren’t always pretty things, but they’re good ammunition for the next strategy war room when a pandemic or other public health emergency breaks out.
James M. Berklan is McKnight’s Long-Term Care News’ Editor-in-Chief and winner of the award for the best commentary in Neal Awards 2024which are awarded annually for the best business journalism in the country.
Opinions expressed in McKnight’s Long-Term Care News Columns are not necessarily those of McKnight’s.
