The impact of COVID-19 on caregivers is well known, and while some research has been done regarding restorative staff spaces, a definitive strategy remains elusive. Features of restorative spaces can vary and the use of such areas is dependent on factors including patient acuity and staffing. The results of this study suggest that resilience room use can mitigate emotional distress in staff, especially if used when burnout levels are low.
Researchers aimed to evaluate whether resilience room use mitigated the emotional distress of neuroscience clinical staff during COVID-19 pandemic conditions.
One room on each of two neuroscience tower floors was designated as a resilience space. One was an active room, included exercise equipment, and had windows overlooking a garden. The other was designated a quiet resilience room and was equipped with massage chairs, art, ambient lighting, and music. Both rooms featured a tablet where users were asked to compete an optional survey to measure emotional distress and burnout. Interestingly, researchers only surveyed participants when they were exiting the room in order not to take too much of their break time for surveys. When participants were preparing to leave the room, they were asked to reflect on how they felt when they walked in and how they were feeling upon leaving. Study participants included neuroscience nurses, patient care technicians, health unit coordinators, nurse practitioners, nurse managers, directors, supervisors, and educators of the inpatient neuroscience intensive care and floor units who used one of the two resilience rooms between January 27, 2021, and May 18, 2021. Actual room use was assessed using a report detailing badge swipes required to enter each respective room. Paired-samples t-tests were used to compare mean levels of emotional distress and burnout before and after the participants experienced room amenities. Analyses were performed using overall totals and by month.
First, patterns of room usage were assessed. Of the 2022 badge swipes recorded, 34 were excluded due to employee role such that 1988 room entrances were used for the final utilization analysis. ICU nurses used the rooms most (40.1%), followed by nurse leaders (28.8%), and floor nurses (13.1%). The quiet room was used more frequently (79.4%) than the active room (20.6%).
Next, data collected via optional surveys was reviewed. Out of a total 396 surveys, there were 388 completed surveys eligible for analysis. Most nurses reported their levels of burnout to be occasional (37.1%) or moderate (33.2%), with 15.9% reporting heavy or extreme levels of burnout. The mean emotional distress score was 58.9% (SD=20.4) upon room entry and significantly decreased to 29.8 (SD=19; P<.001) after use. Interestingly, self-reported burnout was negatively correlated with reduced stress (r329 = −0.163, P = .003) indicating that as burnout increased, there was less of a reduction of emotional distress associated with room use. Participants who indicated they experienced no burnout, seemed to have the greatest reduction in emotional distress (72.5%) suggesting that it’s important to initiate restorative measures before burnout takes hold. While the authors note 121 comments were submitted in response to an open-ended question at the end of the survey, no formal thematic analysis was described.
Limitations include lack of detail about how many of the 1988 badge swipes were repeat visitors and how long each person remained in the room. Other limitations include the single-site setting, the single survey design, the use of emotional distress as a single construct, and the use of stress and distress interchangeably. Finally, multiple participants could have entered the room(s) using the badge of only one person, and the effect of COVID-19 pandemic conditions on room use is unknown.