Psychosocial Crisis Intervention for Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients and Healthcare Workers

Objectives: Shelter hospital was an alternative way to provide large-scale medical isolation and treatment for people with mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to various reasons, patients admitted to the large shelter hospital was reported high level of psychological distress, so did the healthcare workers. This study aims to introduce a comprehensive and multifaceted psychosocial crisis intervention model.

Methods: The psychosocial crisis intervention model was provided to 200 patients and 240 healthcare workers in Wuhan Wuchang shelter hospital. Patient volunteers and organized peer support, client-centered culturally sensitive supportive care, timely delivery of scientific information about COVID-19 and its complications, mental health knowledge acquisition of non-psychiatric healthcare workers, group activities, counseling and education, virtualization of psychological intervention, consultation and liaison were exhibited respectively in the model. Pre-service survey was done in 38 patients and 49 healthcare workers using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) scale, the Patient Health Questionnaire 2-item (PHQ-2) scale, and the Primary Care PTSD screen for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (PC-PTSD-5). Forty-eight healthcare workers gave feedback after the intervention.

Results: The psychosocial crisis intervention model was successfully implemented by 10 mental health professionals and was well-accepted by both patients and healthcare workers in the shelter hospital. In pre-service survey, 15.8% of 38 patients were with anxiety, 55.3% were with stress, and 15.8% were with depression; 16.3% of 49 healthcare workers were with anxiety, 26.5% were with stress, and 22.4% were with depression. In post-service survey, 62.5% of 48 healthcare workers thought it was very practical, 37.5% thought more practical; 37.5% of them thought it was very helpful to relief anxiety and insomnia, and 27.1% thought much helpful; 37.5% of them thought it was very helpful to recognize patients with anxiety and insomnia, and 29.2% thought much helpful; 35.4% of them thought it was very helpful to deal with patients' anxiety and insomnia, and 37.5% thought much helpful.

Conclusions: Psychological crisis intervention is feasible, acceptable, and associated with positive outcomes. Future tastings of this model in larger population and different settings are warranted.